Case Details

Citation(s)
1965 SLG 4564 = 1965 SLD 4564 = 1965 PLD 65
West Pakistan Peshawar
Writ Petition No. 8 of 1964, decided on 30th November 1964.
Presented By: Faizullah Khan and Bashiruddin Ahmed, JJ  
Emperor v. Chamask Lal 1941 Bom. 156 ref.   S. Masoom Shah for Petitioner.   Sher Bahadur Khan, Addl. A.-G. for
Respondents.

AHMAD KHAN-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI DIVISION AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (VII of 1963)

Section: 3

(a) West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (VII of1963),   S. 3 read with First Sch. Person charged with several offences, listed and not listed in First Sch.-Case, nevertheless, can be referred to Tribunal for trial of offences listed in First Sch. Rest of offences can. either be left to be tried in criminal Courts or may be dropped altogether.   Under section 3 of the West Pakistan Criminal Law. (Amendment) Act, 1963 the Commissioner is empowered to refer to the Tribunal for decision the guilt or innocence of the accused only for the offences listed in the First Schedule to the Act. But where the accused is charged of several offences some of which, not having been mentioned in the Schedule, could not be validly referred to the Tribunal, the Commissioner is competent, in such a case, to refer the guilt or innocence of the accused for those offences which are mentioned in the First Schedule and the remaining charges can be tried in ordinary criminal Courts. Since the Commissioner has the power to, refer the guilt of the accused on the charges mentioned in the First Schedule, he has also the power, in cases, where the accused is charged of some offences which are not mentioned in the first Schedule, either .to split up the charges and permit the charges, not referable to the Tribunal, to be tried in the criminal Courts or else drop such charges. altogether.   (b) Interpretation of statutes-   Jurisdiction conferred on Court by enactment-Court, impliedly, has power to do acts or employ means, essentially necessary to its execution.   Muhammad Fazlul Rahman v. Custodian, (E. P.) A I R 1956 Hyd. 91; R. v. Twyford (1836) S A & E 430 and Ex. p. Martin (1879) 4QBD212ref.   Maxim:   Quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a man anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist)Full- and true import of maxim-[Ad referendum: Quando aliquid mandatur, mandatur ad onme per quod pervenitur ad 'illud (when anything is commanded, everything by which it can be accomplished is also commanded); Cuicunque aliquis quid concedit, concedere videtur et id, sine…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register