Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 195,410,476,480,481,000,000

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 228

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10A

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 476 & 480---Trial of offences in relation to court---Procedure---Provisions of Ss. 476 & 480, Cr.P.C.---Distinction---Main difference between Ss. 476 & 480, Cr.P.C. is that of competence of court in awarding sentence as well as procedure for recording sentence---Court, under S. 476, Cr.P.C. has discretion to pass any sentence after summary trial while in S. 480, Cr.P.C., court can only competently detain accused and award a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs. 200/- on every day. Irshad Ahmed v. The State 1992 SCMR 1229 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 476 & 480---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Offences in relation to court---Fair trial---Procedure---Court enjoys absolute discretion in such like offence either to take cognizance under S. 476 or 480, Cr.P.C.---Once cognizance has been taken, court is left with no option but to follow procedure---If court is of the opinion that though cognizance is taken under S. 480, Cr.P.C. but accused was entitled for punishment in excess to limit of 'not exceeding Rs.200/-' then court has to send case to other court so that accused can enjoy guaranteed right of fair trial and same is the situation when cognizance is taken under S. 476, Cr.P.C.---Taking cognizance under S. 476, Cr.P.C. also means that court may award any legal sentence hence it legally cannot deprive accused from right of fair trial and court is left with no option but to follow procedure of summary trial. Irshad Ahmed v. The State 1992 SCMR 1229 and Muhammad Mushtaque v. The State PLD 2003 SC 19 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 228--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 410, 476 & 486---Interrupting the court---Judgment in abscondence---Judgment in absentia---Accused was a practicing lawyer who was aggrieved of conviction and sentence awarded to him for interrupting court proceedings---Plea raised by accused was that conviction and sentence was awarded at his back without following procedure---Validity---Act of absconding or leaving court could not be treated as admission of guilt which, at the most, could be taken as a circumstance against…

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