| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4830 = 1965 SLD 4830 = 1965 PLD 692 |
West Pakistan Lahore
Writ Petition No. 592 1965, of 1965, decided on 22nd April 1965.
Presented By: Sajjad Ahmad and Muhammad Akram, JJ
Shamim Hussain Kadri for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 592 1965, of 1965, decided on 22nd April 1965.
Presented By: Sajjad Ahmad and Muhammad Akram, JJ
Shamim Hussain Kadri for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD-Petitioner
VERSUS
HAMMAD RAZA, C. S. P., COMMISSIONER SARGODHA DIVISION AND ANOTHER --Respondents
Law: West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (VII of 1963)
Section: 3
(a) West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (VII of 1963)----- ----S. 3 read with First Schedule-Persons said to have committed, in course of same transaction, several offences some listed while others not listed in First Schedule-Prosecution competent to drop charges for offences not falling under Schedule and thus bring accused for trial before Tribunal for offences falling within ambit of its jurisdiction-Rest of offences can be tried in ordinary criminal Courts or may be dropped altogether-Penal Code (XLV of 1860, Ss. 302 & 379-Arms Act (XI of 1878), S. 19. The accused in a murder case, soon after the murder, were found to be in possession of a transistor radio belonging to the deceased as well as an unlicensed pistol with live cartridges. The case against the accused under section 302/34, P. P. C. was withdrawn from the Court of a Magistrate and referred for trial to a Tribunal to be constituted under the West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1963. The validity of the order of reference was attacked on the ground that since the three offences, namely, murder under section 302, P. P. C., theft of radio under section 379, P. P. C. and the offence under section 19, Arms Act, 1878 for being found in possession of unlicensed pistol were said to have been committed in the course of same transaction, they could not be split up for purpose of separate trials in two different forums and that as the case against the accused included offences not mentioned in the First Schedule to the West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1963, it could not be referred for trial under that Act and the reference could not become valid by the isolation of the offence of murder, which is mentioned in the First Schedule from the other offences which are not so mentioned therein Held, that the impugned order of reference to Tribunal did not suffer from any defect. The offence under the Arms Act regarding the recovery of unlicensed pistol is by itself an independent offence, unconnected with the murder occurrence, except that the prosecution may want to prove that the pistol in question was the weapon of offence in the case. Whether it was or it seas…