| Case ID |
4416b333-93ae-45da-bb48-35b5b2b851bc |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Revision No. 210 of 1948 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 31, 1948 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court, presided over by Justice S. A. Rahman, partially allowed the revision petitions in Criminal Revision No. 210 of 1948. The court upheld the trial court's decision to release the petitioners, who were minors, on the condition of furnishing surety bonds. However, the court found the period of the security bonds set by the trial court to be excessively long and reduced it to six months. Additionally, the court set aside the portion of the trial court's order that stipulated rigorous imprisonment for two years in the event of defaulting on the security bonds, as it lacked sanction from the relevant section of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment emphasized that the prosecution is not required to present positive evidence of sufficient maturity of understanding for minors under twelve years of age, allowing for inferences based on the circumstances of each case. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of *ABDUL SATTAR and another (minors)s vs THE CROWN* decided by the Lahore High Court on August 31, 1948, the court addressed critical issues pertaining to the application of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code concerning juvenile offenders. The petitioners, Abdul Sattar and another minor, were initially convicted under sections 458 and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code by a First Class Magistrate in Mianwali. Given their young age, below twelve years, and their status as first-time offenders, they were granted probation with the provision of furnishing surety bonds of Rs. 1,000 each for a duration of two years. The Magistrate also imposed a punitive condition that failure to furnish these bonds would result in two years of rigorous imprisonment.
Upon appeal, the Lahore High Court scrutinized the trial court's adherence to legal standards, especially the necessity of establishing the minors' sufficient maturity of understanding under section 83 of the Penal Code. Justice S. A. Rahman highlighted that the prosecution is not mandated to provide explicit positive evidence regarding the minors' maturity; instead, it is permissible to infer this from the case's circumstances. The judgment referenced several precedents, including *In re. Marimuthu* and *Queen Empress v. Hakimuddin*, to support the stance that while specific findings regarding a minor's maturity are not strictly necessary, the circumstances of the offense provide adequate grounds for such determinations.
Furthermore, the court examined the application of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly sections 562(1), 562(1A), and 552. It was determined that the Magistrate's simultaneous imposition of rigorous imprisonment alongside the release on bonds was inappropriate and unsupported by the statutory language. This portion of the order was thus set aside, reinforcing that imprisonment should only be considered contingent upon the failure to furnish the required bonds.
The High Court also addressed the argument concerning the trivial value of the stolen property, noting that section 457 of the Penal Code, which governs theft, does not fall within the purview of section 562(1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the petitioners could not be dismissed with a mere admonition based on the value of the theft.
Justice Rahman concluded by adjusting the security bond period to six months, deeming the original two-year period excessive given the circumstances, including the minor status and first-time offense of the petitioners. The court's decision underscores a nuanced approach to juvenile justice, balancing statutory requirements with the individual circumstances of young offenders to ensure just and equitable outcomes. This case highlights the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying laws in a manner that considers the developmental stages of minors, thereby contributing to the broader discourse on child welfare and legal accountability in Pakistan. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
S. A. RAHMAN, J
|
| Lawyers |
Hamid-ud-Din for Petitioner,
Abdul Aziz Khan, Assistant to the Advocate-General for Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
ABDUL SATTAR and another (minors)s
|
| Respondents |
THE CROWN
|
| Citations |
1949 SLD 31,
1949 PLD 372
|
| Other Citations |
I L R 6 Mad. 373,
I C 807,
I L R 27 Cal. 133,
22 W R (Cr.) 27-28 (1874),
A I R 1934 Lah. 582,
Jamsher v. Emperor (A I R 1934 Lah. 582)
|
| Laws Involved |
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860,
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
83,
458,
457,
562(1),
562(1A),
552
|