| Case ID |
376d72e0-5cec-4fe2-8545-425a576e68d7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Revision. Case No. 516 of 1949 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 03, 1950 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court rejected the petition for revision and issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced. The court determined that under subsection (6) of section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has the right to challenge his conviction even after a prior dismissal of his petition. The court concluded that the trial of the respondent under multiple counts of offences was illegal due to misjoinder, and thus the convictions were set aside, particularly under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was noted that the provisions of section 5 had expired as the Act was temporary, and consequently, no fresh trial could be ordered. The court discharged the rule to enhance the sentence. |
| Summary |
The case revolves around the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code and its application to a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Lahore High Court analyzed the legality of a trial that involved multiple charges, determining that the provisions regarding separate charges for distinct offences were violated. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural laws, specifically sections 233 and 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandate separate trials for different offences unless exceptions apply. The decision highlighted the right of the accused to contest their conviction even after a revision petition had been dismissed, thereby ensuring protection against wrongful convictions. The court ultimately set aside the convictions due to the illegality of the trial process, reflecting a commitment to upholding legal standards. The implications of this case underscore the need for precise adherence to legal procedures in criminal trials, particularly concerning the handling of multiple charges and the rights of the accused under the law. The case serves as a pivotal reference for understanding procedural rights and the interpretation of temporary statutes in the context of criminal misconduct. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD KHURSHID ZAMAN, J,
M. R. KAYANI, J
|
| Lawyers |
M. Z. Kitchlew, Advocate-General for Petitioner,
M. Anwar for Respondent,
S. Zafarullah for Petitioner,
141. Anwar for Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
CROXVN
|
| Respondents |
GHULAM MUHAMMAD
|
| Citations |
1950 SLD 11,
1950 PLD 479
|
| Other Citations |
I. L. R. 25 Lah. 391,
I. L. R. 49 Bom. 450,
I. L. R. 50 Bom. 783,
I. L. R. 54 Bom. 822,
I. L. R. 8 Lah. 521,
I. L. R. 10 Lab. 241,
A. I. R. 1933 All. 669,
Z. 8 Cal. 634
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947,
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
|
| Sections |
439(1),
439(6),
369,
233,
234,
5,
161
|