2010 P Cr (PLP)
KHURSHEED AHMED — Appellant Versus ZAHID HUSSAIN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHURSHEED AHMED — Appellant Versus ZAHID HUSSAIN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 P Cr (PLP) (KHURSHEED AHMED — Appellant Versus ZAHID HUSSAIN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raees Munawar Alam Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 417
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(i), 337-F(i), 504 & 506
Shajjah-i-khafifah, Damiyah, intentional insult and criminal intimidation
State Counsel had conceded that if case be remanded to the Trial Court for passing fresh judgment by re-assessing the material produced by the complainant in his evidence, then he would have no objection
Charge was framed against accused persons under four sections while the judgment was silent in respect of Ss.337-A(i) and 337-F(ii), P.P.C.
Judgment did not mention as to whether the respondents had been acquitted or convicted in those two sections
Judgment whereby accused persons were acquitted, was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with directions to pass the judgment by re-assessing the evidence adduced by the parties after providing them an opportunity of hearing.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, J.
The learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the case has submitted that the direct complaint was filed against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 506/2. 337-F(i), and 504, P.P.C. so also the charge was framed under these sections but the learned trial Court passed the Judgment acquitting the respondent Nos.1 and 2 only for offence punishable under sections 504 and 506/2, P.P.C. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Paragraph No.3 of the reasons in the impugned Judgment which is reproduced as under:-- In their examination-in-chief, both the alleged eye-witnesses Abdul Hadi and Ali Muhammad have more or less stated the same facts as narrated by complainant but the eye-witness Abdul Hadi has contradicted the complaint by stating that S.H.O. did not ask them for bribe on the same day of incident but on next following day, as he had asked the complainant to come on the next morning. This criminal acquittal appeal is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 as well as learned APG for the State on merits but the learned APG has conceded that without touching the merits of the case, if the case be remanded back to the learned trial Court for passing fresh Judgment by reassessing the material produced by the complainant in his evidence then he has no objection. Admittedly, the charge was framed against the respondents under four sections while the judgment is silent in respect of sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(ii), P.P.C. It is not mentioned in the judgment whether the respondents have been acquitted or convicted in these two sections. Consequently, the judgment dated 5-3-2009 passed by the learned IIIrd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sukkur in Cr. Case No.112 of 2008 whereby acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the case, is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court with directions to pass the judgment by reassessing the evidence adduced by the parties after providing them an opportunity of hearing. With these observations, the criminal acquittal appeal stands disposed of. H.B.T./K-7/K Case remanded.