Law: Punjab Public Safety Act, (XVIII of 1949)

Section: 17,5proviso

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 439

Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: 114(e),4

(a) Punjab Public Safety Act (XVIII of 1949), S. 17----­Externment order under S. S-Prosecution for disobedience of order-Crown to prove ingredients of offence by evidence-How much and what kind of evidence may be produced depends upon circumstances of each case-If factum of issuing authority's "satisfaction" can be legitimately presumed from order itself, no further evidence may be necessary---Presumption regarding official acts-Evidence Act (I of 1871), S. 114, illus. (e). In a prosecution under section 17, Punjab Public Safety Act, as in a prosecution under any other criminal law, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and, it cannot be laid down that a Court must, in every case, be satisfied by the mere production of the order complained of. The prosecution must prove all the ingredients of an offence by evidence; but how much and what kind of evidence should be produced must depend upon the circumstances of each case. In some cases it may be desirable and even neces­sary for the prosecution to call the officer concerned as a witness; in other cases it may be wholly unnecessary if the factum of satisfaction can be legitimately presumed from the order showing that the issuing authority was satisfied about its necessity. It is of course not a conclusive presumption and can always be rebutted. If circumstances are brought on the file in the course of the case, casting doubt on the factum of the satisfaction of the relevant authority, expressed on the face of the document in question, the Court may then decide to call for proof of the fact, as required by section 4 of the Evidence Act. In a suitable case it would indeed be but meet and proper to raise such a presumption in favour of the prosecution, after considering the status of the officer signing the order and the circumstances in which it was passed. P L R 1949 Lah. 497, Suraj Pakash Ram Lal v. Emperor A I R 1948 Lab. 84 and Muhammad Hayat v. Crown P L D 1951 Lah. 15 ref. Emperor v. Abdul Majid A I R 1949 Bom. 387 and Emperor v. Bhiku Ramchandra Shinde A I R 1950 Bom. 330 distin­guished. (b) Punjab Public Safety Act (XVIII of 1949), S. 5 proviso---­Temporary residence does…

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