Law:

Section:

Keywords: Petitioner, Appearance, Petition, Theft, Examination, Evidence, Call, High Court, Possession, Impugned Order, Magistrate, Order, Parties, Discharge, Procedure, Consideration, Prosecution, Custody, Property, Division, Investigation, Recovery Result: Revision allowed JUDGMENT On the night between the 14th and 15th of May, 1969, there was a theft from the house of Ali Bux in village Kalwari, District Sukkur. The theft came to be discovered in the morning when a big aperture was found in the wall and some trunks were found to be missing. Ali Bux went to the Bangerji Police Station and lodged the report. After 23 or 24 days, the petitioner came to be arrested by the Police and on his pointation a pair of golden ear-rings, a piece of cloth and a trunk were secured from his house. After due investigation, the case was put in Court, 2. The petitioner in his statement before the learned Magistrate denied the allegations made against him but did not claim the articles in question. The learned Magistrate discharged the accused under section 253, Part I, Cr. P. C. Whereafter a revision application was preferred by the Superintend ent of Police, Sukkur, before the learned District Magistrate, who after hearing the parties ordered a fresh inquiry. It is this order, which has been challenged here. 3. It was contended by Mr. Mohammad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the learned District Magistrate had no powers under section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order a fresh inquiry. In support of his contention, he cited the case of Chinta Haran Barua and another v. Ahmed Kabir Chowdhury and 2 others (1971 P Cr. L J 358). This is a judgment from a learned Single Judge and is in conflict with a judgment of a Division Bench from the same High Court reported in Afiz All and others v. The State (P L D 1960 Dacca 197), in which authorities from different High Courts were duly considered. I am afraid the contention raised by the learned counsel is untenable. 4. It is to be seen that the 3 articles alleged to have been secured on the pointation of the petitioner from his house, have no distinguishing marks. The piece of cloth was only 42 yards and no…

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