Case Details

Citation(s)
1978 SLG 283 1978 SLD 283 1978 PLD 38
Supreme Court of Pakistan

QAISAR KHAN, MUHAMMAD HALEEM AND GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SHADI KHAN

VS

MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND 3 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- S. 344 read with S. 193(1)-Adjournment-Words "for such time" and "'from time to time" occurring in S. 344-Not to be given rigid meaning-Sessions Judge, on receipt of case sent to it by Magistrate for trial, finding it not possible to give any firm date for hearing, postponing commencement of trial sine die, till such time as it could be fixed for hearing-Adjournment of trial, sine die, in circumstances, held, not against provisions of S. 344.-(Saif ur Rahman v. The State P L D 1978 Lab. 314 overruled],-[Adjournment]. Section 344, Cr. P. C. empowers the Court to postpone the commencement of or adjourn any inquiry or trial. It further authorises the Court to do so "from time to time" and "for such time as it considers reasonable". Accord­ingly, having taken cognizance of the offence under section 193(1) the Sessions Judge postponed the commencement of the trial till such time as the case was fixed for hearing as it was not possible to give any firm date In every case on account of a large number of cases having been sent to the Court of Session pursuant to the deletion of the committal proceedings from the Criminal Procedure Code. In this context even if the period was nest specified still the interregnum must be regarded as reasonable and a sufficient compliance of the words "for such time". They should not be given a rigid meaning for in doing so it would lead to impossible situation necessitating the production of a number of accused in Court and thereby causing hindrance to the trial of the cases. On this view of the matter there is no occasion for postponing the commencement of the trial now and again. It cannot be held as a proposition that the case cannot be adjourned sine die. Saifur Rahman v. The State P L D 1978 Lah. 314 overruled. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate and Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Fazal-i-Haq, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for respondents Nos. 1-3. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General. Punjab for the State. Date of hearing : 17th January 1978. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J: Upon hearing the learned Assistant Advocate ­General, Punjab, and counsel for the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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