Case Details

Citation(s)
1950 SLG 68 1950 SLD 68 1950 PLD 86
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1949; decided on 23rd December 1949, from the order of Magistrate, 1st Class, Gujrat, dated 30th November 1948
MUHAMMAD, JAN AND M. R. KAYANI, JJ
Shabir Ahmad, Advocate-General, for Crown. S. H. Jafri, for
Respondents

THE CROWN

VS

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and fOUR others

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 324,148,149,325,143,000,000

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 417,Schedule11,235(1),403(2),345,423(a)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345-Case under Ss. 324 and 148 Indian Penal Code-Allowed to be compromised by Magistrate-Accused acquitted of both charges--Acquittal under, S. 148, Indian Penal Code, held illegal. Where five persons were put on trial under Sections 324 and 148 Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate, allowing the whole case to be compromised acquitted the accused of both charges. Held that the statutory law is clear that an offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code is not compoundable and therefore the order of acquittal under that section is illegal and the accused be re-tried on that charge. I. L. R. 46 Mad. 257; A. I. R. 1948 Pat. 58; A. I. R. 1941 Sind 186; and A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 464 relied on 20 I. C. 618 distinguished. JUDGMENT Muhammad Hussain, Shah Muhammad, Ghulam Muhammad, Ahmed Din, sons of Allah Wadaya, and Muhammad Sadiq, son of Muhammad Hussain, were put on trial in the Court of Ch. Muhammad Din, Magistrate 1st Class, under sections 324 and 148 Indian Penal Code. The evidence for the prosecution was recorded by the trial Court partly on 10th August and partly on 28th September, 1948. The accused were examined on 29th September and the case was adjourned to 2nd November, 1948, for defence evidence. The accused applied for a further adjournment on that day because their witnesses were not present and the case was postponed to 30th November 1948 when Allah Ditta, son of Shamas Din, the injured person in the case, filed a petition for permission to compromise the case. This petition was opposed by the P. S. I. on the ground that though the offence under section 324 was compoundable, with the per­mission of the Court, the offence under section 148 Indian Penal Code was not so compoundable. Reliance was placed by the counsel for the accused on Sh. Basireddi v. Sh. Khayrat Ali. (20 I. C. 618) in support of his contention that if an offence under section 324 Indian Panel Code is permitted to be compromised by the Court there is no offence left under section 148 Indian Penal Code to be dealt with separately; and the whole case can be compromised. This contention was accepted by the trial Court, the compromise was allowed, and the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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