| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3274 = 1981 SLD 3274 = 1981 PCRLJ 1335 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1977, decided on 22nd January, 1979.
Presented By: Mazharul Haq and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ
Qamar-ud-Din Meo for the State. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for
Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1977, decided on 22nd January, 1979.
Presented By: Mazharul Haq and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ
Qamar-ud-Din Meo for the State. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for
Respondent.
STATE-----Appellant
VERSUS
MUKHTAR AHMAD---------Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 417, 173, 190(3)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 417, 173 & 190 (3)-Appeal against acquittal---Police report under S. 173, Cr. P. C. submitted in respect of offence under S 302, P. P C. ---Trial Magistrate could only transmit case under S. 190 (3), Cr. P. C. to Sessions Court for trial ---Trial of case by Magistrate, held, illegal-Acquittal of accused, set aside.-[Appeal against acquittal]. Date of hearing : 22nd January, 1979. JUDGMENT RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.--This is an appeal under section 417, Cr. P. C. by the State against the judgment dated 18th May, 1976 of Mr. M. Akram Khalid, Magistrate Section 30, Okara acquitting the present respondent. 2. On 5th January, 1976 one Dilshad Ali lodged an F. I. R. at Police Station, Gogara, inter alia alleging that Mukhtar respondent had struck Farhad Ali with a wooden rod on the head, as a result of which he fell on the ground and was removed to the Civil Hospital, Okara. The police originally registered a case against the respondent under section 307/ 325, P. P. C. but on the death of Farhad Ali changed it to section 302, P. P. C. In the report under section 173, Cr. P. C. the Investigating Officer formally maintained that the offence fell under section 302, P. P. C. The challan, as such, was submitted for an offence punishable with death which was exclusively triable by a Court of Session. However, the Magistrate tried the respondent for an offence under section 304, P. P. C. and acquitted him. 3. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Magistrate who tried the case had no power to assume jurisdiction and he should have transmitted the case under section 190 (3) Cr. P. C. to, the Sessions Court for trial. Having illegally assumed jurisdiction, it is submitted that the judgment of…