P L D 1964 Dacca 170 (PLP)
SAKIR MULLA‑Petitioner Versus DIDAR MULLA‑Opposite‑Party
| Citation | P L D 1964 Dacca 170 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. S. Chowdhury, J |
| Parties | SAKIR MULLA‑Petitioner Versus DIDAR MULLA‑Opposite‑Party |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 Dacca 170 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 Dacca 170 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. S. Chowdhury, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 Dacca 170 (PLP) (SAKIR MULLA‑Petitioner Versus DIDAR MULLA‑Opposite‑Party). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 426 & 504‑Intention or knowledge essential "ingredients of offence‑Non‑consideration of worth of document re : claim of bona fide right in disputed property‑Fatal for trial. (b) Retrial‑Petty offences‑Court's failure to comply with law‑Accused, not be put to perils of second trial. Sultan Ahmed with A. T. M. Afzal in support of the Reference. Nemo in opposition to the Reference.
Judgment & Decree
Sultan Ahmed with A. T. M. Afzal in support of the Reference. Nemo in opposition to the Reference. This is a Reference by Mr. K. Rahman Khan, Sessions Judge, Rajshahi recommending that the order made by Mr. P. N. Bishi, Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajshahi on the 16th June 1962 convicting the accused‑petitioners under sections 426 and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code should be set aside.
2. The case for the prosecution is that the accused petitioners along with others damaged the boundary fencing of the land belonging to the complainant Sakir Mulla and thereby caused damage to him. It is further alleged that the petitioners insulted the complainant using filthy language. On these allegations the petitioners were tried under sections 504 and 426 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
3. In making his recommendation for setting aside the impugned order, the learned Judge has stated that there is no finding as to the ingredients of the offences under sections 426 and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate it appears that he has not arrived at any finding as to either the knowledge of the accused persons that a wrongful loss or damage would be caused to the complainant This assumed importance, in the facts of this particular case, in view of the assertion of the accused‑petitioners of their bona fid claim of right in the disputed property. They have given oral evidence to that effect and also filed a rent receipt Exh. A, show ing that the land belonged to the accused party but the Magistrate has not considered them at all. This rent receipt may or may not stand scrutiny at the end but in a criminal case for offences where intention or knowledge is an essential ingredient of an offence, non‑consideration of the document for what it is worth in the context of the claim of bona fide right in the disputed property is indeed fatal for a trial.
4. The learned Magistrate has not also properly considered the evidence relating abusing the complainant in filthy language nor has he come to any finding in that respect. He has merely said in the concluding part of the judgment that he found the accused persons guilty also under section 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code. I am of opinion that this is not a sufficient compliance with the requirement of law. Before a person is convicted there should be a clear finding as indicated above. Having regard to the petty nature of the offence I do not think that owing to the failure of the Court to try the case in accordance with law, the accused persons should be put to the jeopardy and the perils of second trial. For the reasons stated above, the Reference is accepted, the order of the convictions and sentences are set aside. S. B./K. B. A. Reference accepted.