| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2331 2015 SLD 2331 2015 PCRLJ 758 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. S-45 and S-47 of 2013, decided on 15th August, 2014. DATE of hearing: 22nd July, 2014.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Nisar Ahmed Durrani for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. S-45 of 2013). Shahid Shaikh, A.P.G. for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. S-45 of 2013). Syed Madad Ali Shah for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. S-45 of 2013). Nisar Ahmed Durrani for Ap
Criminal Appeals Nos. S-45 and S-47 of 2013, decided on 15th August, 2014. DATE of hearing: 22nd July, 2014.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Nisar Ahmed Durrani for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. S-45 of 2013). Shahid Shaikh, A.P.G. for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. S-45 of 2013). Syed Madad Ali Shah for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. S-45 of 2013). Nisar Ahmed Durrani for Ap
NASEER SHAH and others
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 426, 321, 223 & 537---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324---Application under S. 426, Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence---Irregularities in the framing of charge---Effect---While deciding an application under S. 426, Cr.P.C.---Court was justified to make a comment regarding defect and irregularity in the charge, for the reason that same could result in causing prejudice to case of either sides at the time of final disposal of the appeal---Defect in the charge, was curable under Ss.223 & 537, Cr.P.C.---Mere irregularity in the charge, should not result in declaration of a legal trial as nullity, particularly where it caused no serious prejudice to accused. 2010 SCMR 608; PLD 2007 SC 564; 2009 YLR 2205; 2012 SCMR 997; 2007 PCr.LJ 829; 2010 MLD 1068; PLD 2006 SC 802; 2009 YLR 1486; 2013 SCMR 1403; 2007 SCMR 184; 2008 SCMR 558 and PLD 2006 SC 153 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 426(1) & 497---Suspension of sentence---Bail, grant of---Provision of S. 426(1), Cr.P.C., was analogous to the one contained in S.497, Cr.P.C., as in both the cases, the sentence was to be suspended pending hearing of appeal/trial, and convict was to be released on bail---Existence and non-existence of the reasonable grounds for believing that the person was guilty of the offence and the scope of further inquiry, were amongst the criteria/hallmarks---In case of application under S. 426, Cr.P.C., only the tentative assessment of the material available evidence---What was undisputedly common for exercising jurisdiction under Ss.426 & 497, Cr.P.C., was that deeper appreciation of evidence was not permissible. 2012 SCMR 997 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 34 & 149---"Common intention"---"Common object"---Sections 34 & 149, P.P.C., were exception to the general principle of law of conviction, which insisted that no one else would be responsible for the act, or consequences, except the one who did the act---While passing conviction with reference to S.34 or 149, P.P.C., much care and caution be shown by the court, and before reaching to conclusion, the question of "common intention" or…
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