Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 154,156,157,233,239(a),173,154,4(h),32,386,537

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154, 156 & 157-Investigating agency at loggerheads with complainant Police investigating officer has right to sponsor version he considers correct and cannot be constrained to produce all evidence produced before him.   Moonda and others v. State P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 275 distinguished.   Jaimal Singh and another v. Emperor A I R 1939 Lah. 523 ref.   (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 233,239(a), 173, 154 & 4(h)-First Information Report lodged against one set of accused Investigating agency sticking to different version and putting up challan against different set of accused-Joint trial of both sets-Not bad.   (1930) 211 C 1963; Ali and others v. The Crown P L D 1954 Lah. 183; Azim-ud-Din v. Emperor 14 Cr. L J 563; Intaj Khan v. Emperor A I R 1934 Rang. 193; Nga Sar Kee v. The King A I-R 1939 Rang. 390 and Rahat Hussain and others v. Emperor A I R 1933 All. 582 ref.   (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 32, 386 & 537 Fine, sentence of-Magistrate failing to mention offence under which fine imposed-Sentence of fine set aside although omission, held, curable under S. 537.     Date of hearing: 26th November 1965.   JUDGMENT   This is an appeal against the order of Mr. Saadat Nawaz Khan, Magistrate Section 30, Gujranwla, dated the 16th of August 1963, whereby he convicted the appellants under sections 326/149 and 148, P. P. C. He sentenced Fayyaz and Shafi appellants to four and a half years R. 1. each under section 326/149, P. P. C. and three months' R. I. each under section 148, P. P. C. The rest, namely, Zilledar, Muhammad Yaqub, Ghulam Rasul, Nawab and Nazir were sentenced to one year's R. I. each, under section 326/149, P. P. C. and three months' R. I. each under section 148, P. P. C. The sentences were, however, to run concurrently. A fine of Rs. 20 each, or seven days' further R. I. in default of payment thereof was also imposed though the section under which it is given is not clearly indicated.   The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on the 22nd ofMarch 1962, at 4-00 p.m. Muhammad Siddiq complainant who…