Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Zafar Pasha ChaudharyParvez Inayat Malik,Ishtiaq Ahmad Minhas
2005 P Cr
2005 P Cr. L J 355
[Federal Shariat Court]
Before Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, J
MUHAMMAD ANWAR ‑‑‑Appellant
Versus
THE STATE--‑Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 171/L of 2004, decided on 30th September, 2004.
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 10(3)/18‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Accused had alleged that the charge framed was defective which had caused a material prejudice to him‑‑‑Accused had contended that charge had, been framed under S.18 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with S.10(3) thereof and offence under S.10(3) was more grave in nature and punishment prescribed thereunder was two times as under S.18 read with S:10(3) for which accused had no previous notice‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Without even demonstrating any prejudice, accused was entitled for retrial‑‑ Impugned order was set aside and case was remitted to Trial Court for framing of proper charge and thereafter proceeding with the trial according to law.
Parvez Inayat Malik for Appellant.
Ishtiaq Ahmad Minhas for the State.
Date of hearing: 30th September, 2004.
JUDGMENT
The appellant has been convicted under section 10(3) of the Office of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to seven ears' R.I. with fine of Rs.20,000 and in default six months' S.I.
2. Before commencement of the arguments, the learned counsel has pointed out that the very framing of charge is defective and it has caused a material prejudice to the appellant. According to the learned counsel the charge has been framed under section 18 read with section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which is in the following manner.
3. The perusal of the charge reveals that the contention raised by the learned counsel is correct and is borne out from the record.
4. Needless to say that offence under section 10(3) of the Ordinance is more grave in nature and the punishment prescribed thereunder is two times as under section 18 read with section 10(3) of the Ordinance for which the appellant had no previous notice. Without even demonstrating any prejudice the appellant is entitled for retrial.
5. I accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case back to the learned trial Judge/Sessions Judge, Shakargarh, District Narowal for framing of proper charge and thereafter proceeding with the trial according to law.
6. It has been stated at Bar by the learned counsel that the appellant was on bail during trial. It is also borne out from the judgment. The learned trial Judge by verifying this fact that the appellant was on bail during trial release him on bail.
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
H.B.T./79/FSC Case remanded.