Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 4849 = 1966 SLD 4849 = 1966 PLD 6
Baghdad ul Jadid
Case No. 72. of 1965 (BWP), decided on 13th May 1965.
Presented By: S. Anwar-ul-Haq, J
A. R. Tayyab for Petitioner.
Respondent No. 2 in person. M. M. Bhatti for the State.

Syed ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  (1) STATE, AND   (2) SHAUKAT ALI-Respondents  

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 203,436

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 203 read with S. 436-Magistrate summoning some accused and discharging rest by order passed under S. 203-Sessions Judge, in revision can only direct holding of further inquiry Section 436 does not empower Sessions Judge to direct that all accused be summoned.   Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 203-"Inquiry" and "trial"-Distinction- Complaint dismissed under S. 203, Criminal Procedure Code, is still at inquiry stage-Trial begins when accused is charged and called upon to answer.  JUDGMENT   The respondent Shaukat Ali filed a complaint in the Court of Mr. Zia-ul-Hassan Qureshi, a Magistrate of the First Class at Bahawalpur, against the petitioner Altaf Hussain and five others alleging the commission of offences under sections 394, 323 and 506, P. P. C. By his order dated the 29th of May 1964 the learned Magistrate summoned only two of the six accused persons, namely, Ashfaq and Ishaq, and that to under sections 323 and 506, P. P. C., holding that no case was at all made out under section 394, P. P. C. Aggrieved by this order the complainant Shaukat Ali went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge of Bahawalpur and the latter, by his order dated the 26th of September 1964, came to the conclusion that the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for not summoning the remaining accused persons and for also ruling out section 394, P. P. C. were not correct as they proceeded on ignoring of material pieces of evidence produced by the complainant. On this view of the matter the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order:------   "I accept the revision petition, set aside the order in question and direct the learned Magistrate, through the District Magistrate, to summon all the accused to stand their trial for the offences with which they have been charged by the com plainant."   In the present revision petition two main points have beenurged;   That acting under section 436, Cr. P. C. the onlypower which could be exercised by the learned Sessions Judge was to order further inquiry, and not to direct the summoning of all the accused persons, and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register