Case Details

Citation(s)
1958 SLG 4051 = 1958 SLD 4051 = 1958 PLD 46
Azad J. & K
Bail Application No. 136 of 1956, decided on 9th October 1956.
Presented By:
  Muhammad Abdul Majid v. Emperor 1927 Sind 173 dissented from.   Muhammad Akram for Petitioner.   Khawaja Muhammad Sharif for Government.

YASIN  

VERSUS

  GOVERNMENT

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 337(3),498

        Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 337 (3) & 498 Approver cannot be admitted to bail.   Where an accused person who had accepted tender of pardon, applied to be released on bail   Held, that under S. 337 (3), Cr. P. C. an approver could not be enlarged on bail.   Section 498, Criminal Procedure Code being general could not over-ride section 337 which specially deals with approvers. ORDER   The point involved in this bail application is whether Ghulam Nabi approver in the case Government versus Fazal-ur- Rehman under section 302 A. P. C, pending for trial before the Sessions Judge Muzaffarabad should be enlarged on bail or not. It has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that section 337, Criminal Procedure Code sub-clause 3 is a bar to the release of the approver on bail. Counsel for the defendant relies on Muhammad Abdul Majid v. Emperor (1927 Sind 173) wherein Mr. Rup Chand Billa Ram, A. J. C., observed that section 337 should be interpreted as obligatory only on the Magistrate granting the pardon requiring him to detain the accomplice in custody and as in no way affecting the powers of superior Court. The learned A. J. C. in his judgment remarked a under   "It is one of the cardinal principles of interpretation of statutes that the construction which produces the greatest harmony and the least inconsistency between different parts of the same statute should prevail : Attorney-General versus Sillem. This rule equally applies where the Court is tailed upon to examine if the general words employed in any one part of the Statute were not intended to be applied without some limitation Cox versus Hakes. If clause 3 is inter preted in the manner suggested by me it is consistent with the provisions not only of section 498 but also of clause (5) of section 497 of the Code which provide for granting and cancellation of bail by superior…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register