| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3234 = 1981 SLD 3234 = 1981 PCRLJ 1089 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1981, decided on 10th May, 1981
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Sharif Khan, Actg. C J
Muhammad Hussain Khan for Petitioners. Rafique Mahmood Khan, Addl. A.-G. assisted by Sardar Khan for the State.
Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1981, decided on 10th May, 1981
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Sharif Khan, Actg. C J
Muhammad Hussain Khan for Petitioners. Rafique Mahmood Khan, Addl. A.-G. assisted by Sardar Khan for the State.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners
VERSUS
THE STATE-Non------Petitioner
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 379
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 379 and Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss. 15 & 17-Revision (criminal)-Juris diction-Police report itself not containing even a whit of facts in relation to offence of "haraabah" as defined in S. 15 of Hudood Ordinance and S. 17 of Ordinance wrongly quoted by Police-No allegation in Police report that any show of force for purpose of taking away property at all used - Subject-matter of offence, a truck lying on open road unguarded-Held: A simple case of theft not liable to -`Hadd" and Tehsil Criminal Court to take its cognizance, in circumstances.-(Jurisdiction-Hadd-Theft]. Date of institution : 2nd March, 1981. ORDER A challan under section 379, Penal Code and section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was put in the District Criminal Court, Rawalakot, for trial by the Police. After some of the proceedings were taken by the said trial Court, an objection was taken to its jurisdiction by the accused-petitioners contending that the case is triable by a Tehsil Criminal Court and so the same should be sent to that Court for trial under law. The impugned order, by which the objection was overruled by the District Criminal Court, was not elaborately made. Only one point regarding standard of evidence was taken in view and that is also question able so as to bring the prescribed number of witnesses in the form of ocular evidence. The circumstances of the case, as they stand narrated by the prosecu tion, do not constitute the offence of `haraabah' because there is no allega tion of making show of force for the purpose of taking away the property of the…