| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2836 = 1962 SLD 2836 = 1962 PLD 334 |
Dacca High Court
Criminal Revision No. 450 of 1961, decided on 21st December 1961.
Presented By: A. S. Chowdhury, J
S. A. Sultan for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
Criminal Revision No. 450 of 1961, decided on 21st December 1961.
Presented By: A. S. Chowdhury, J
S. A. Sultan for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
ABDUL MANNAN-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE-Opposite-Party
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: S. 340
Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)
Section: S. 114 (g)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340-"May of right be defended by a pleader"-Defence of accused includes right to address arguments-Conviction and sentence may be set aside in case of denial of such right-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 245 & 258. Imranullah v. Crown P L D 1954 F C 123 foll. Kalipada Kumar v. The King-Emperor 45 C W N 1045 and Galos Hirad and another v. The King A I R 1944 P C 93 ref. Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 114 (g)-Prosecution witnesses essential for unfolding of narrative not examined-Inference adverse to prosecution. Stephen Senivaratne v. The King A I R 1936 P C 289 rel. JUDGMENT In this case a Rule was Issued on the Deputy Commissioner of Mymensingh to show cause why the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code should not be set aside. The case for the prosecution is that on 2-2-60 at about 7 p.m. the complainant was waiting at the Gouripur Railway Station at a place towards the north of the Booking Office, and his son Raham Ali was with him. They set out for a place called Nandail to purchase bullocks: The petitioner Abdul Mannan is alleged to have approached them and requested the informant P. W. 2 Hasu Sk. for change of a 100 rupee note. The informant with somewhat reluctance brought out ten Ten-Rupee notes and asked the petitioner to bring his hundred rupee note. But the petitioner without doing so snatched away the ten Ten-Rupee notes from the hand of the informant and ran towards the south when he was given a hot chase by the informant and his son who shouted "thief, thief". The petitioner is stated to have turned to the east after proceeding 70/80 cubits when he fell on a Cooly Sardar, Syed Md. Hossain who was engaged in marking the goods. The petitioner was then seized by the Cooly Sardar, the informant and his son. It is also the prosecution case that one constable and many members of the public came and Incident was narrated to the constable who took the petitioner to the office of the Station Master and the informant and others followed them. A first information report was lodged with…