Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: 265-D, 342 , 537

Law: Azad Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302, 34

PLJ 2026 SC (AJ&K) 63 [Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction] Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----Ss. 265-D, 342 & 537--Azad Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 302 & 34--Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974, Ss. 23 & 23(3)--Registration of FIR--denovo trial--dismissed--revision petition before Shariat Bench--Dismissed--Single Member Proceedings--Dual member Court--Curable Irregularity--Void ab initio--Coram non judice--Waiver--Limitation--Failure of justice--Recording of Evidence--Final judgment--District Criminal Court--Core legal controversy raised in appeal revolved around whether proceedings conducted by single member of District Criminal Court, despite presence of second member, rendered trial void ab initio; whether such procedural lapse was curable under section 537, Cr.P.C.; and whether failure to raise such objection at appropriate stage operated as waiver under law--Through substitution introduced in law, single member was empowered to exercise all procedural and statutory functions, including recording of evidence, in absence of other member, save only for rendering final judgment--Current statutory position, as reflected in Section 23(3) of Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974, clearly authorized one member of District or Tehsil Criminal Court to proceed with all functions, except pronouncement of final judgment, even in absence of other member--Under Section 23(3) of IPL, it was expressly provided that where one member of District or Tehsil Criminal Court was not present for any reason, other member was fully competent to exercise all powers conferred under Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law, save for power to render final judgment.--Section 537, Cr.P.C. was saving provision, intended to preserve validity of proceedings where no actual failure of justice had occurred--Omission such as signing or conducting proceedings by single member could not vitiate entire proceedings unless it was shown to have affected outcome or fairness of trial--Objection regarding conducting of proceedings by single member was raised only after prosecution had concluded its arguments and case was poised for decision, thus…