| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 4895 = 1966 SLD 4895 = 1966 PLD 30 |
Baghdad ul Jadid
Criminal Reference No. 1.140, of 1964/(LHR), decided on 11th April 1966.
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J
Haider Shah v. Mukhtar Hussain Shah P L D 1963 Lah. 548 ref. Fakhruddin Pirzada for A. A.-G. for Petitioner. A. R. Tayyib for
Respondents.
Criminal Reference No. 1.140, of 1964/(LHR), decided on 11th April 1966.
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J
Haider Shah v. Mukhtar Hussain Shah P L D 1963 Lah. 548 ref. Fakhruddin Pirzada for A. A.-G. for Petitioner. A. R. Tayyib for
Respondents.
THE STATE-Petitioner
VERSUS
GAMAN KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 251-A,161,162
a.Interpretation of statutes--Heading of Chapter or section-Not to be taken into consideration where language of a section is clear-Words of section must be given due consideration, independent of heading, to find out purpose of its enactment. The heading is not in all cases a determining factor regarding the interpretation of the provisions of a section. If the language of a section is clear, headings are not to be taken into consideration. They cannot be used to cut down the clear words of the section. Due consideration must be given to the words of the section, independent of the heading, for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to what according to the Legislature was the purpose of enacting the section. Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. grand 1869 L R 4 H L 171; R. v. Surrey (1947) 2 A E R 276 and Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. A I R 1940 P C 105. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 251-A-Scope Words "except those tried summarily"--Meaning-Application of section not dependent on fact that it is a warrant trial-Provision enforceable in "all cases" whether pertaining to summons trial, sessions trial or commitment proceedings. The Legislature when it unmistakably used the words "except those tried summarily" did so to make its intention known that section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code will not apply to summary trials which in other words means that but for such a specific exclusion, it would have applied to summary trials as well. It is, therefore, clear that the Legislature did not intend the exclusion of the application of section 251-A from other trials like summons and sessions trial. In fact the particular exclusion of "summary trials" from the operation of section 251-A proves that its provisions apply to all other trials. Thus the application of section 251-A is not in any way dependent on the fact that it is a warrant trial. What is required is that there should be a case instituted upon a police report and once this is established, the Courts will enforce section 251-A in "all cases" irrespective of the fact whether the case pertains to a summons…