Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 495 2011 SLD 495 2011 PLD 153
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2010, heard on 8th December, 2010
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J
Nisar Abbas Jora for Petitioner. Abdus Samad, Addl. Prosecutor-General for the State/
Respondent. Shahid Azeem for
Respondent

WALI DAD KHAN

VS

THE STATE and another

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 435,439,561A,464,465

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.464 & 465---Qatl­-e-amd---Application for postponement of trial on ground of lunacy of accused---Accused submitted application for postponement of the trial on the ground that he was suffering from hypomania; and that he was a lunatic person---Accused submitted photocopies of documents in support of his lunacy, but Trial Court disbelieved the same---Validity---Trial Court had rightly disbelieved documents submitted by accused, because those did not suggest, that disease carried by accused, was permanent suffering from insanity, thereby, incapable of making his defence or not---Documents produced by the counsel for the complainant before the Trial Court relating to some transaction in Revenue Department, reflected an impression that accused was of sound mind; and was fit enough to understand the proceedings of the trial pending before the Trial Court---Trial Court, in circumstances had rightly dismissed application filed by accused---No jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning had been pointed out by the counsel for accused so as to warrant an interference in jurisdiction and discretion exercised by the Trial Court in dismissing application of accused. Raja Aurangzeb v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 1930 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 464 & 465--Trial of lunatic---Provisions of S.465, Cr.P.C. should be adhered to if any accused, before the Trial Court or a High Court, appeared to the court at his trial to be unsound mind; and consequently incapable of making his defence---Court in the first instance, would try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity; and if the court was satisfied of the fact, it would record a finding to that effect; and would postpone further proceedings in the case---Inquiry under S.464, Cr.P.C. should not be held merely because accused had made an application claiming that he was of unsound mind---Such inquiry would only be undertaken where it appeared to the court, from its own observation or from any other factor, that accused was incapable of making his defence…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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