P L D 1967 Lahore 962 (PLP)
BADAR DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1967 Lahore 962 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | S. A. Mahmood, J |
| Parties | BADAR DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1967 Lahore 962 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1967 Lahore 962 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: S. A. Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1967 Lahore 962 (PLP) (BADAR DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muzaffar Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th March 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961), S. 3(1)(a) read with S. 18-Section 3(1) in nature of direction or mandate with an exception-Section 18 is an exception-Case belonging to Part A of Sched investigated by police and submitted for trial to Magistrate-Discretionary with such Magistrate to refer case to Conciliation Court or try same himself-[Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Fazal-ur-Rahman P L D 1967 Lab. 65 ref.. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A-High Court will not interfere to quash charge when there is evidence for such charge-Abuse of process of Court must be established Circumstances casting doubt on guilt of accused have to be consi dered by trial Court. Raza Husain Shamsi for the State
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 8th March 1967. This petition by Badar Din arises out of the following facts. A case under sections 323, 147 and 149, P. P. C. was registered at Police Station, New Anarkali, Lahore, on the 23rd of June 1965, at the instance of Mst. Jannat Bibi, widow of Mahmood Ali, the deceased son of the petitioner, against the petitioner, his wife, his son and others. A challan under sections 323/149 and 147, P. P. C. was submitted against the petitioner and others before the Ilaqa Magistrate, who recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and framed a charge against the petitioner and others under sections 323/149 and 147, P. P. C. By this petition the petitioner prays that the proceedings pending in the Court of Mr. M. D. Chaudhary, Magistrate, 1st Class, be quashed on the ground that sections 323 and 147 are included in Part I of the Schedule to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, and under section 3(l) of this Ordinance, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, all cases falling under Part I of the Schedule shall be referred to conciliation under the Ordinance, and no Criminal Court shall have jurisdic tion to try any such case.
2. The learned counsel for the State, however, relies on section 18 of the Ordinance, and contends that as this case was investigated into by the police and a challan was put in Court it was for the Court to refer it to the conciliation Court and since the Criminal Court did not choose to act under section 18, the trial of the case by the criminal Court is not without jurisdiction. In support of this contention he has relied on Muhammad 1qbal and others v. Fazal‑ur‑Rahman (P L D 1967 Lab. 65). For a proper understanding of the question involved it is necessary to reproduce sections 3(1) and 18 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance:‑ "3(I). Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908)‑ (a) all cases falling under Part I of the Schedule shall, save as otherwise provided, hereinafter be referred to conciliation under this Ordinance, and no civil or criminal Court shall have jurisdiction to try any such case, and (b) any of the cases falling under Part II of the Schedule may be so referred if all the parties thereto agree to such a reference." 18. "Investigation by police.‑Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the police from investigating a cognizable case by reason of the fact that the case relates to an offence speci fied in section A of Part I of the Schedule, but if any such case is taken to a criminal Court, such Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that it be referred to conciliation under this Ordi nance." A careful examination of section 3(1) shows that it directs that all cases falling under Part I of the Schedule shall be referred to conciliation under this Ordinance. The provision in it is in the nature of a direction or a mandate, to refer, but this direction is subject to the words "save as otherwise provided hereinafter". Section 18 provides otherwise, namely, that where a case is taken to a criminal Court after a police investigation, such Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that it may be referred to conciliation. It, therefore, rests in the discretion of the COWL whether to refer it to conciliation or not and it is not the intention of the Ordinance that such a case must be referred to the Conciliation Court, and the criminal Court has not jurisdic tion to try such a case. Such a case is excluded from the operation of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 3 by reason o: the words "save as otherwise provided hereinafter".
3. On merits, it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence, since a charge has been framed. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to show that there were circumstances, which threw doubt on the guilt of the petitioner, but this is a question which shall have to be determined by the trial Court. In this application under section 561‑A, it has to be found that the proceedings are an abuse of the process of Court, which conclu sion cannot be reached. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. A. H. Petition dismissed.