| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1949 SLG 31 1949 SLD 31 1949 PLD 372 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 210 of 1948, decided on 31st August 1948
S. A. RAHMAN, J
Hamid-ud-Din for Petitioner. Abdul Aziz Khan, Assistant to the Advocate-General for
Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 210 of 1948, decided on 31st August 1948
S. A. RAHMAN, J
Hamid-ud-Din for Petitioner. Abdul Aziz Khan, Assistant to the Advocate-General for
Respondent
ABDUL SATTAR and another (minors)s
VS
THE CROWN
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 83,458,457
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 562(1),562(1A),552
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------ ----S. 83-Proof of "Sufficient maturity of understanding"-Whether positive evidence necessary May be inferred from circumstances of case. It is not necessary for the prosecution to lead positive evidence to show that an accused person below 12 years of age had arrived at sufficient maturity of understanding within the meaning of section 83 of the Indian Penal Code. It would be permissible to arrive at that finding even on a consideration of the circumstances of the particular case. I L R 6 Mad. 373 relied on; 1 I C 807 ; I L R 27 Cal. 133 distinguished. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- ----S. 83-Exception relied on by accused must be specially pleaded and established by evidence. 22 W R (Cr.) 27-28 (1874) relied on. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------ ------S. 562 (1)-Order as to bond directing at the same time that offender in default of furnishing security shall suffer imprisonment-Direction, has no sanction in language of section. The learned Magistrate acted improperly in directing at the same time as he released the petitioners under section 562 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, that in default of their furnishing the security bonds they would suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. Such an order finds no sanctions from the language of section 562, Criminal Procedure Code. The question whether the petitioners should be detained in prison could only arise after they had failed to furnish the security bonds required of them. A I R 1934 Lah. 582 referred to. JUDGMENT S. A. RAHMAN, J. -This order will dispose of two revision petitions presented on behalf of Muhammad Zaman and Abdul Sattar in two different cases Criminal Revision Nos. 210 and 211 of 1948. The facts of the two cases are similar and the same legal points are involved in them. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose of them together. The two petitioners were convicted by a 1st Class Magistrate at Mianwali, in the first case, under section 458, Indian Penal Code and having regard to the fact that they were below 12 years of age and were first offenders, they were released on probation of good conduct on their furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492