Trial

2021 PLD 783 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(a), 9 & 10Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 20Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 22-A & 22-BChild marriageTrial

Litigation between the parties was pending before the Family Court and an order was also passed in petitions filed under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C

Application of petitioners (minor girl and her mother) was dismissed by respondent (Chairman Union Council) after holding inquiry

Held, that the proceedings under Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 ('the Act 1929') were independent in nature

Pendency of any suit could not be pleaded as hurdle in the way of such proceedings

Civil and criminal proceedings could proceed side by side

Ex-officio Justice of Peace, in the present case, had dismissed petitions under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C on the ground that in terms of S.9 of the Act, 1929, there was a prohibition in taking cognizance of the offence under the Act, 1929, so said order could also not be an impediment in exercising constitutional petition

Even otherwise, no remedy was provided under the Act, 1929 against the order passed by the Chairman Union Council (respondent)

High Court directed the respondent (Chairman Union Council ) to proceed in terms of S.9 of the Act, 1929 against the private respondents

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 YLR 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

AbsconderTrialProcedure

When court had declared an accused absconder, his case was supposed to be separated from case of other accused.

2013 PLD 12 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 28, 30, 561-A & Sched.-IIPenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(i), 337-L(2), 365, 147 & 148TrialCourt, jurisdiction ofAddition of offence

Investigating officer prepared his investigation report and submitted challan before Magistrate (First Class) for trial but the Magistrate while taking cognizance observed that offence under S.367 P.P.C. was made out and he had no jurisdiction to try the same

Magistrate sent reference to Sessions Judge, who entrusted the same to Additional Sessions Judge for trial

Plea raised by accused was that in Sched.-II of Cr.P.C., offence under S.367, P.P.C. was triable by Court of Session and Judicial Magistrate could take cognizance of the case

Validity

Provisions of S.30, Cr.P.C. excluded applicability of S. 28, Cr.P.C. in clear terms by making exception to it in respect of courts mentioned in Column 8 of Schedule-II of Cr.P.C.

Magistrate First Class with powers under S.30, Cr.P.C. had jurisdiction to try all those offences, which were not punishable with death

Judicial Magistrate by sending reference to Sessions Judge for entrusting case to Court of Session, as offence under S.367, Cr.P.C. was not triable by it, was an illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the court concerned

High Court set aside order of Judicial Magistrate as well as that of Sessions Judge by which case was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge for trial

High Court withdrew the case from court of Additional Sessions Judge and entrusted the same to Magistrate S. 30, Cr.P.C. for conclusion of trial

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2011 SCMR 1954 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 29TrialPresumption of guiltShifting of onus, principle ofApplicability

Duty upon the court has been cast under S.29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to presume in the trial that accused has committed an offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, unless contrary is proved

Firstly prosecution has to establish the fact that narcotic drugs were secured from the possession of accused

If prosecution proves recovery of narcotics from physical custody of accused, then burden of proving that he was not knowingly in possession of the article is upon the accused.

1969 SCMR 830 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Trial-Chief Court of Sind trying criminal case on its original side-Empowered to follow procedure applicable to High Courts in matter of jury trial-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ch. XXIII.

1959 PLD 40 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Trial Jurisdiction not lacking in Court to try, case-Fact that case did not come to Court in regular way, does not vitiate trial.