Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 5412 = 1967 SLD 5412 = 1967 PLD 75
Sindh High Court
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 403 of 1964, decided on 2nd August 1966.
Presented By: H. T. Raymond and Noorul Arfin, JJ
Iftikar Ahmad for the State.  
Respondent in person.   Muhammad 11aleem, A. A.-G. and Muhammad Hayat Junejo: Amicus Curiae.  

  THE STATE-Appellant  

VERSUS

  SARDAR AHMED-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 255,256,364(2)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 180

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-----   ----- Ss. 255, 256 & 364(2)-Statement of accused ruder Ss. 255 & 256-Can neither be said to be his examination nor form part of his examination by Court-Accused cannot be compelled under S. 364 (2) to sign such statement-Refusal by accused to sign statement under S. 256-Does not constitute offence under S. 180, P. P. C. Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 180.   Where the questions for consideration before the Court were:   whether the statement of an accused person under section 255 or section 256, Cr. P.C. can be said to be his examination by the Court so that an accused can be compelled under the provisions of section 364 (2) of the Code to sign such statement? and   whether a refusal on the part of an accused person to sign a statement under section256, Cr..P. C. constitutes an offence under section 180, P. P. C.?   Held, with regard to the plea under section 255, Cr. P. C. such plea of guilty or not guilty can never be taken to be a part of the examination of the accused because on general principles a plea is one thing and an examination of an accused another, and if authority were sought for this distinction between plea and examination the same is to be found in the provisions of section 263 (g), Cr. P. C. which refers, to "the plea of the accused and his examination (if any)". Nor can a statement under section 256, Cr. P. C. in reply to the question, as to which witness should be recalled for cross-examination after charge be considered as an examination of the accused because this is a simple question of procedure and one that does not touch the circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused or the merits of the case as against him. It seems to us, therefore, that it would be erroneous to hold that a statement made by an accused person in reply to the question put to him under section 256, Cr. P. C. can be considered to form a part of his examination so as to require his signature in accordance with the provisions of section 364(2), Cr. P. C.   An essential ingredient for an offence under section 180 Penal Code, 1860 is that the public servant concerned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register