1969 PLP 272 (SCMR)
UMAR HAYAT‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 272 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | UMAR HAYAT‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 272 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 272 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 272 (SCMR) (UMAR HAYAT‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhanzmad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karma Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 13th February 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th November 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 1023 of 1968, read with Criminal Revision No. 1026 of 1968 and Criminal Revision No. 1031 of 1968 of even date). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 308‑Misappropriation of sum of less than Rs. 100‑Triable solely by Conciliation Court under S. 3 of Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 only if all parties agree. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 13th February 1969. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑This disposes of Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 373, 374 and 375 of 1968. The petitioner stands convicted at three separate trials under section 408, P. P. C. for misappropriation of Government receipts for renewal of arms licences and sentenced to one years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in each case. Appeals against convictions and sentences having failed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, he preferred revision petitions in the High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only point urged in support of the revision petition was that inasmuch as the sum involved was less than Rs. 60 the offence was triable by the Conciliation Court and the Magistrate who held the trial in the first instance had acted without jurisdiction. The plea raised was per se untenable as the offence under section 409, P. P. C. involving misappropriation of a sum of less than Rs. 100 is triable by a Conciliation Court only if all the parties thereto agree to such a reference. The revision petitions were, accordingly, dismissed by a learned Judge in the High Court. There was nothing to indicate that the State had at any stage agreed to a reference to the Conciliation Court. On the contrary reports under section 173, Cr. P. C. were submitted in the Court of a Magistrate for trial under the Code. The provisions in the Conciliation Courts Act and the rules framed there under on which the learned counsel relied in support of the contention that it is the duty of the Court to ascertain from the parties their wishes in this behalf are applicable only when the case is brought before the Conciliation Court and not to trials under the Criminal Procedure Code. The view adopted by the High Court is plainly correct. We refuse leave to appeal and dismiss tile petitions. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????Leave refused.