| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1954 SLG 40 1954 SLD 40 1954 PLD 547 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 902 of 1953 decided on 23rd March, 1954 from the order of M. A. Rahman, Sessions Judge, Sialkot, Ex-Officio Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, dated the 11th November 1953, convicting the appellant
SHABIR AHMAD AND ORTCHESON, JJ
M. Sleem, Said Akbar Khan and Zia Ullah Khan, for Appellant. C. M. Sharif, A.A.G., for
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 902 of 1953 decided on 23rd March, 1954 from the order of M. A. Rahman, Sessions Judge, Sialkot, Ex-Officio Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, dated the 11th November 1953, convicting the appellant
SHABIR AHMAD AND ORTCHESON, JJ
M. Sleem, Said Akbar Khan and Zia Ullah Khan, for Appellant. C. M. Sharif, A.A.G., for
Respondent
IFTIKHARUDDIN
VS
THE CROWN
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 340(1)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340 (1)-Counsel appointed by Court on behalf of accused-Court should inform accused, if representation arranged by it not acceptable to him he should his case himself-Failure to give proper opportunity to accused to engage counsel of his choice-Proceedings quashed-Rules and Orders of High Court, Vol. III Chapter 24(c), rule 2. If the accused contumaciously refuses to accept the offer of legal advice made to him, the proper procedure is to inform him that if the representation arranged by the Court is not acceptable to him, he must conduct his case himself. Rule 2 of Chapter 24 (c) of the Rules and Orders of High Court, Vol. III cannot be interpreted as entitling the Court to force a counsel upon an unwilling accused. The only effect of section 340 (1) is that once counsel has been engaged, either by the accused himself or on his behalf, no Court can deny such counsel the right of appearing. In this case the Public Prosecutor had propounded his case in the Sessions Court when the accused intimated to the Court that he did not wish further to be defended by the counsel appearing for him and that he wanted to engage counsel "from Lahore" whereupon the Court adjourned the case to the following day and appointed a counsel on behalf of accused on Government expense telling the accused at the same time that he was at liberty to bring his counsel "from Lahore or elsewhere." On the following day the accused submitted an application that he had no confidence in counsel appointed by Court and prayed for permission to engage counsel " from Lahore". Held, that the procedure adopted by the Additional Sessions Judge in forcing a counsel on the accused against the latter's wishes was illegal that the time allowed (one day) to accused was inadequate. The proceedings were quashed. AIR 1929 Lah. 705 and 39 PLR 311 ref. JUDGMENT ORTCHESON, J.--Iftikhar-ud-Din, aged 29 years son of Ahmad Din, has been convicted under sections 302, 201 and 397 P. P. C. by tile learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, for offences arising out of the murder and robbery of one Haji Nizam Din. Under section 302 P, P C. he has been sentenced to death, while…
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