| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3389 = 1963 SLD 3389 = 1963 PLD 233 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1962, decided on 6th September 1963.
Presented By: Faizullah Khan, J
Muhammad Afzal Khan for Petitioners. Sher Bahadur Khan, A. A: G. for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 20th August, 1963.
Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1962, decided on 6th September 1963.
Presented By: Faizullah Khan, J
Muhammad Afzal Khan for Petitioners. Sher Bahadur Khan, A. A: G. for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 20th August, 1963.
ABDUL KARIM AND ANOTHER-Petitioners
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: Ss. 118 & 243
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 118 & 243 Mere consent or readiness of person proceeded against, to execute bond-Not sufficient for making order demanding security---- Provisions of S. 243 not applicable. Crown v. Sheedan 25 P R 1915 and Prem Singh v. Emperor A I R 1917 Lah. 304 ref. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 112."Substance of the information"-Means particulars indicating grounds on which information of Magistrate is based. JUDGMENT The admitted facts leading up to this revision are that on 30-1-63 one Khanimullah, Jemadar, District Council, Charsadda, lodged a report with S. I. Sher Taj Khan (P. W. 1), at Police Station Khanmahi, that Abdul Karim and Wazir Muhammad (petitioners) of Mufti Abad were headstrong, and were bent upon damaging Government property, and that they had recently demolished a culvert constructed by the District Council and taken away the material. On the basis of that report, the S. H. O. proceeded under section 151, Cr. P. C. and arrested the petitioners on the same day and produced them before Mr. Khadim Muhammad Khan, a Magistrate Ist Class, Charsadda. On the same date the Magistrate served the petitioner with a notice under section 112, Cr. P. C., to show cause why they be not called upon to execute bonds in a sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties for a period of one year. The material portion of the notice in so far as it purported to indicate the "substance of the informations" reads as follows : - regarding dispute the damaging of the Council property. On the notice a joint statement of the petitioners was taken down under which they purported to state, "I do not contest the notice and am willing to be bound down. I have no defence to produce." The learned Magistrate examined Sher Taj Khan, S. I. alone in the case, who proved the report which was lodged with him by Khanimullah, Jemadar District Council. In other words, the S. I. did not depose anything from his personal know ledge on the merits of the case and he merely proved the report lodged with him by Jemadar Khanimullah. The learned Magistrate on the same date, acting under…