| Case ID |
0001349b-96f1-4ea3-8369-c97672ac87dc |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 9-D of 1958 |
| Decision Date |
May 05, 1959 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as it could not be established that the Magistrate had overstepped his authority in discharging the respondent. The court found that the Magistrate had appropriately sifted through the evidence and was justified in his conclusion that there were not sufficient grounds for committing the accused for trial. The court emphasized the importance of the preliminary enquiry in preventing frivolous cases from burdening the Sessions Court and highlighted that the role of the Magistrate is not to determine guilt but to assess if there is a possibility of conviction based on the evidence presented. The court referenced various precedents to affirm that the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in this case was within the bounds of his powers, and thus the order of discharge was upheld. |
| Summary |
In the case of HARI BALLAV SHAHA ROY vs. GOPI BALLAV SHAHA AND GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN, the Supreme Court of Pakistan dealt with the appeal regarding a commitment order made by a Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code. The case revolved around the critical evaluation of evidence in preliminary enquiries and the responsibilities of the Magistrate versus the Sessions Court. The court underscored that a Magistrate must determine only if there are sufficient grounds for trial without delving into the guilt of the accused. This ruling reinforces the principle that the preliminary enquiry serves as a gatekeeping function to filter out baseless charges, ensuring that only cases with credible evidence proceed to trial. The court's decision aligns with existing legal standards and is crucial for legal practitioners in understanding the limits of a Magistrate's authority, particularly in relation to evidence assessment. By maintaining a clear distinction between the roles of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court, this case contributes to the legal framework regarding criminal procedure, emphasizing the necessity for a balanced approach in judicial proceedings. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J.,
M. SHAHABUDDIN,
A. R. CORNELIUS,
AMIRUDDIN AHMAD
|
| Lawyers |
Fazlul Haq,
Hamidul Huq,
B. C. Shah,
M. A. Khandkar
|
| Petitioners |
HARI BALLAV SHAHA ROY
|
| Respondents |
GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN,
GOPI BALLAV SHAHA
|
| Citations |
1959 SLD 400,
1959 PLD 347
|
| Other Citations |
Ramchandra Babaji Gore v. Emperor I L R. 59 Bom. 125,
Akberally v. Alimahomed A I R 1939 Bom. 372,
Akbar Ali v. Rai Bahadur and others A I R 1925 All. 670,
Emperor v. Allah Mahr and another I L R 49 All. 443,
Tarapada Biswas and another v. Kalipada Ghosh A I R 1924 Cal. 639,
National Bank of India v. Kothandarama Chetti 21 I C 129,
Emperor v. Varjivandas alias Kalidas Bhaidas I L R 27 Born. 84,
I L R 48 Mad. 874,
A I R 1937 Mad. 654,
A I R 1947 Mad. T91,
A I R 1943 Oudh 233,
A I R 1926 Cal. 528
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
209,
210,
437
|