| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1958 SLG 4024 = 1958 SLD 4024 = 1958 PLD 6 |
West Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 1956, decided oil 31st October 1957, from the order of Nazir Muhammad Khan, M. I. C. with powers under section 30, Criminal P. C. Abbotabad, dated 18th September 1956.
Presented By: ABDUL HAMID, J
S. 75-Previous conviction Proof, mode of-Mere admission of accused, without proof by prosecution evidence of previous conviction riot enough-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 221 (7), 511. Where provisions of section 511, Criminal P. C., had not been complied with and there was not a word in the prosecu tion evidence about the previous conviction of the accused, who had been only put a question regarding his previous conviction in the course of his examination under section 342 Criminal P. C., which question he had answered in the affirmative Held, that enhanced sentence in terms of section 75 P. P. C., was not in accordance with law. Section 511 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that evidence of previous conviction should be adduced by the production of one of the certificates or documents mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of that section, through the hands of a witness. This procedure was not observed in this case. Unless some evidence is tendered by the prosecution to indicate that the accused has a previous conviction against him which renders him liable to enhanced punishment no occasion in law can arise to put a question in respect of it to the accused. It is only the appearance of something in the prosecution evidence which can give an occasion to the Court to put questions to the accused at the time of his examination under section 342, Criminal P. C. It is not correct to invoke the aid of section 75, P. P. C., for imposing enhanced punishment if that section is added to the charge without compliance with the requirements of section 511, Criminal P. C., even admission of previous con viction by the accused is not sufficient if previous conviction has not been deposed to by any of the prosecution witnesses and one of the certificates or documents mentioned in, section 511, Criminal P. C., has not been produced. Daya Ram v. Emperor A I R 1929 Lah. 768 ref. Abdul Karim for Appellant. Dost Muhammad Kamil for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 31st October 1957.
Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 1956, decided oil 31st October 1957, from the order of Nazir Muhammad Khan, M. I. C. with powers under section 30, Criminal P. C. Abbotabad, dated 18th September 1956.
Presented By: ABDUL HAMID, J
S. 75-Previous conviction Proof, mode of-Mere admission of accused, without proof by prosecution evidence of previous conviction riot enough-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 221 (7), 511. Where provisions of section 511, Criminal P. C., had not been complied with and there was not a word in the prosecu tion evidence about the previous conviction of the accused, who had been only put a question regarding his previous conviction in the course of his examination under section 342 Criminal P. C., which question he had answered in the affirmative Held, that enhanced sentence in terms of section 75 P. P. C., was not in accordance with law. Section 511 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that evidence of previous conviction should be adduced by the production of one of the certificates or documents mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of that section, through the hands of a witness. This procedure was not observed in this case. Unless some evidence is tendered by the prosecution to indicate that the accused has a previous conviction against him which renders him liable to enhanced punishment no occasion in law can arise to put a question in respect of it to the accused. It is only the appearance of something in the prosecution evidence which can give an occasion to the Court to put questions to the accused at the time of his examination under section 342, Criminal P. C. It is not correct to invoke the aid of section 75, P. P. C., for imposing enhanced punishment if that section is added to the charge without compliance with the requirements of section 511, Criminal P. C., even admission of previous con viction by the accused is not sufficient if previous conviction has not been deposed to by any of the prosecution witnesses and one of the certificates or documents mentioned in, section 511, Criminal P. C., has not been produced. Daya Ram v. Emperor A I R 1929 Lah. 768 ref. Abdul Karim for Appellant. Dost Muhammad Kamil for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 31st October 1957.
ALIF DIN-Accused-Appellant
VERSUS
THE PAKISTAN STATE-Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 75,221(7),511,342
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 75
JUDGMENT ABDUL HAMID, J.-Alif Din appellant was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment by a Magistrate 1st Class, Abbotabad under section 380/75, P. P. C. Against that sen tence lie has preferred an appeal to this Court. The case against the accused is that on 26th June 1954, he went to the dispensary of Doctor Fatehullah who is a private Medical Practitioner in Abbotabad. The Doctor was absent and his compounder Ghulam Samdani was lying on a bench in the dispensary. His waist-coat was lying on a chair. The accused enquired about the Doctor and when he was told that he should come after some time he went away. It appears that after a while he came back to the dispensary and lifted the waist-coat which he had previously seen lying on a chair. Ghulam Samdani was at that time half asleep. He was awakenedby the noise of the sliding of the chair which was perhaps necessary to do in order to lift the waist coat. He. says that at that time he saw Alif Din appellant and one oher man who was later on found to be one Abdul Aziz running away from the dispensary with his waist-coat. He ran after them raising a cry. There were people of which Alif Din accused was arrested at a distance of about a furlong from the dispensary in the compound of the Government College. Amongst the chasers were one Muhammad Hanif a clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner Hazara and Shahbaz Khan a Forest Guard. In the meanwhile a police constable arrived and the accused and Abdul Aziz were handed over to him. He led them to the police Station. According to the evidence of Ghulam Samdani and Muhammad Hanif when Alif Din was caught in the compound of the College Ghulam Samdaui's waist-coat wa's still in his hand, but according to Shahbaz's statement he had thrown it away a little before he was caught. But all the three were unanimous in saying that he had it in his hand while he was running away. His co-accused Aziz was said to have been chased by another person Haroon who caught him at another place at some distance from where Alif Din was arrested. The accused in his statement said that he was arrested on suspicion only. With regard to…