Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3247 = 1981 SLD 3247 = 1981 PCRLJ 973
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 770 of 1.979, decided on 18thMay, 1981
Presented By: Abdul Hayee Kureshi, Actg. C J
Imam Ali Kazi for Appellant. Imran Ahmed for
Respondent No. 2. Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin for the State.

GULZAR MUHAMMAD Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 200, 561-A

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 200 read with S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-Joint trial---Trial Magistrate dealing with all three complaints against peti tioner simultaneously, recording a single statement under S. 200, Cr. P. C. and directing issuance of process-Facts and allegations in aid of three cases different-Trial Magistrate, held, required to record statement in all three cases separately-Issuance of process quashed, in circumstances. Date of hearing: 18th May, 1981.                                                                                                                                             JUDGMENT I propose to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 770/1979, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 856/1979 and Cr. Miscel laneous Application No. 948; 1979 by this single order. I have heard Mr. Imam Ali Kazi, Mr. Imran Ahmed and Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin. The brief facts are that Shahid Ali Siddiqui has filed three separate complaints, the nature of which is stated below:- (1) Complaint before Additional City Magistrate, Civil Lines, and Clifton, Karachi against Gulzar Muhammad under section 468, P. P. C. (2) Complaint before Additional City Magistrate, Civil Lines Karachi against Gulzar Muhammad and Mst. Saghira Begum under section 497/498, P. P. C., and (3) Complaint before Additional 'City Magistrate, Clifton, Karachi against Gulzar Muhammad and Mst. Saghira Begum under section 403/406/383/385 P. P. C. It seems all the three complaints were dealt with by the Magistrate simultaneously. The learned Magistrate recorded a single statement under section 200, Cr. P. C. and directed issuance of process. To that extent it is common ground that the method of dealing with the cases was no warranted by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly there was no application or motion or…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register