Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3252 = 1963 SLD 3252 = 1963 PLD 63
Sindh High Court
    Criminal Revision No. 34 of 1962, decided on 25th September 1962.
Presented By: H. T. Raymond, J
Azizullah Sheikh for Applicant.   Imam Bux Sheikh for
Respondent.   Date of hearing: 25th September 1962.

HAKEEM-Applicant  

VERSUS

  THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: S. 256

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 256-Cross-exami nation-Failure to afford full opportunity to accused-Proceedings illegal and invalid-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 110.   Ranjah v. The State P L D 1962 B J 12 rel. JUDGMENT   The applicant Hakeem, son of Umar was arrested from his house by the police at 5 a.m. on 4-11-1960 and was produced alongwith nine others before the S. D. M., Thatta encamped at Pir Patho to face proceedings under section 110, Cr. P. C. An order under section 112, Cr. P. C. was read out by the learned S. D. M. to which the applicant pleaded not guilty and prayed for time to engage an Advocate and to file a written statement. But, this request of his was turned down and the S. D. M. straightaway proceeded to record the statements of 12 prosecution witnesses whose attendance at the place of trial was procured in advance by the police. By about 12 noon that day an Advocate on behalf of the applicant arrived at Pir Patho from Thatta and was in time to cross-examine only the two last prosecution witnesses in a haphazard manner and without having obtained any instructions from the applicant. Thereafter that same day an application under section 117 (3) Cr. P. C: was submitted by the prosecution and the learned Magistrate ordered the applicant to execute a bond for good behaviour in the sum of Rs. 10,000 for a period of 12 months with respectable sureties residing within a radius of 5 miles of the applicant's residence, paying income-tax or land revenue of not less than Rs. 1,000 per annum and being in a position to exercise control over the applicant. No time was given to the applicant to produce such sureties with the result that he was remanded the same day to jail.   2. A Revision Application being Criminal Revision Appli cation . No. 475/1960 against this order under section 112, Cr. P. C. was filed in this High Court which was disposed of by Abdul Hamid, J., on 16-1-1961. His Lordship holding the conditions imposed in the order under section 112, Cr. P. C. to be onerous modified them by reducing the amount of the surety bond to Rs. 5,000 with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 2,500 each and declaring that the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register