| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 3534 2009 SLD 3534 2009 PCRLJ 1095 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2006, decided on 13th February, 2009. (On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Court, dated 3-6-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2005).
Before Muhammad Reaz Akhtar Chaudhry, C.J. and Muhammad Azam Khan; J
Khalid Rashid Choudhry, Advocate for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Muzaffar Ali Zafar, Addl. Advocate-General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2006, decided on 13th February, 2009. (On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Court, dated 3-6-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2005).
Before Muhammad Reaz Akhtar Chaudhry, C.J. and Muhammad Azam Khan; J
Khalid Rashid Choudhry, Advocate for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Muzaffar Ali Zafar, Addl. Advocate-General for the State.
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS----Appellant
VS
YASIN AYUB and another----Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 422,423,417(2-A)
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 324,359,337-D
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 422 & 423---Criminal appeal not to be dismissed for non- prosecution---Criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution and it has to be decided on merits---If a convict appellant after having filed an appeal deliberately disappears or does not appear in the Court or his counsel is absent, then the Court can decide the appeal after hearing the Public Prosecutor so appointed or if he does not appear then the Court is competent to decide the appeal on merits. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 417(2-A), 422 & 423---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 459 & 337-D---Appeal against acquittal not be decided without hearing accused---Section 422, Cr.P.C. provided issuance of notice for service to the accused in an appeal filed against acquittal and under S.423, Cr.P.C. it was mandatory that the acquittal appeal shall be decided after hearing the accused---Respondents accused had proceeded to England before notice could be served upon them, after acquittal from the Shariat Court---Accused, therefore, could never be treated as absconders without service---Had the accused been served upon and after appearance in court absented themselves, then they could be termed as absconders---Hearing being a right of accused, without service of notice upon them appeal against their acquittal could not be heard and disposed of---Non- bailable warrants issued against the accused respondents were consequently directed to remain intact for execution---Appeal was also directed to be' kept pending in circumstances, till the accused were served upon or they were brought before the Court. 1997 SCMR 274; 2001 PCr.LJ 706; PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 184; PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 1 and PLJ 1994 C.S. 791 (sic) distinguished. Superintendent and Bemembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bangal v. Golok Tikadar and others AIR 1944 Cal. 234; State Government, Madhya Paradesh v. Vishwanath Nidhanji and others AIR 1954 Nag. 231 and The State v. Karamat and others PLD 1960 (W.P.) Pesh. 126 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---Ss. 417, 422 & 423---Appeal against acquittal---Not to be heard and disposed of without service…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492