| Case ID |
e1e9c5b2-ae41-416e-b4e5-f1d7ca419389 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 2-D of 1969 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 19, 1971 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 09, 1971 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal by ALHaj ABDUR RAB against the judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan, which had previously dismissed his application for quashment of the commitment order. The court ruled that non-compliance with section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code did not vitiate the commitment since the appellant was not prejudiced by such non-compliance. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of section 211 but clarified that failure to comply would not automatically invalidate proceedings unless actual prejudice was demonstrated. The court's decision was based on the understanding that the appellant had opportunities to produce defense evidence, which he ultimately did not utilize. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the earlier ruling of the High Court. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a criminal appeal concerning the interpretation of key sections of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had correctly interpreted section 211, which mandates that an accused must provide a list of witnesses for their defense. The case highlights the balance between procedural compliance and the actual impact of such compliance on the rights of the accused. The ruling clarifies that while compliance with procedural mandates is crucial, failure to adhere to such protocols does not necessarily lead to the quashing of proceedings unless it can be shown that the accused was prejudiced. The court's decision ultimately reinforces the importance of ensuring that defendants have the opportunity to present their defense while also allowing for some flexibility in procedural adherence when no harm is demonstrated. This case is significant for legal practitioners as it sets a precedent for similar future cases involving procedural compliance and the rights of the accused. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Delta Agency Ltd.,
Delta Jute Mills Ltd.
|
| Judges |
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J.,
M.R. KHAN,
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD
|
| Lawyers |
Hamidul Huq Chowdhury, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
B. C. Panday, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant,
T. All, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Rafiqul Huq, Advocate Supreme Court,
S. M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1,
Shahabuddin, Advocate Supreme Court,
S. S. Huda, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2
|
| Petitioners |
ALHaj ABDUR RAB
|
| Respondents |
another,
MOBARAKULLAH
|
| Citations |
1971 SLD 116,
1971 PLD 857
|
| Other Citations |
Moonda and others v. The State P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 275,
Ibrahim v. The State P L D 1961 S C 200
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan (1962),
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
58(3),
211,
209,
215,
537
|