Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3296 = 1975 SLD 3296 = 1975 PLD 736
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 101/Q of 1975, decided on 4th April 1975.
Presented By: Ataullah Sajjad, J
Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi for Petitioner. Dr.Farooq A. Hassan Asstt. A.-G. and Shabir Ahmad for the State.

MUHAMMAD NAZIR alias GUDDI SAIN AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

VERSUS

TATS STATE AND ANOTHER=---RESPONDENTS

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 215, 210

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 215 & 210-Commitment, quashing order of-Absence of evidence ; a question of law-No commitment can be made without some factual foundation for satisfaction of Magistrate-Case one of no evidence-Commitment quashed. It is to be noted that Chapter XVIII of the Cr. P. C. which deals with enquiries has a scheme of its own. Under section 210 of Cr. P. C., a commitment is to be made if the Magistrate is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for that. The trial is to be held on the basis of evidence in the possession of the prosecution and the satisfaction of the Magistrate has to be in relation to the evidence on the record. If it is clear that there is no evidence and commitment will be abortive, the Magistrate under sub section (2) of section 213 has the power to discharge the accused. These provisions clearly indicate that no commitment can be made without some factual foundation for the satisfaction of the Magistrate. In the absence of any incriminatory evidence, no satisfaction as is contemplated under section 210 can be reached. The question of insufficiency of evidence is quite distinct from that of absence of evidence. The absence of evidence is a question of law under section 215 and to hold otherwise would be to compel the Court of Sessions to go through a hollow performance of holding a trial. Khushi Muhammad and another v. The State 1973 P Cr. L 1 609 fol. Hassan Din v. Emperor A I R 1931 Lab. 467 ; Gansham Das v. Emperor A I R 1930Lah. 545 ; Bahadar Khan v. State P L D 1963 Pesh. 34 and Harendra Lai Roy Chowdhuri v. Sint. Haridasi Debi and others A I R 1914 P C 67 ref. (b) Judgment- -- Language used by Magistrate in writing order (with respect to accused and witnesses) not quite in accord with judicial equanimity-Registrar of High Court directed to call for explanation of Magistrate.                                                                                            …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register