Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNEER KHAN VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 1861
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
MUNEER KHAN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE and ------another --Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.101/Q of 1994, decided on 16th May. 1994.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 367 & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.457/380---Quashing of order---Sessions Court had remanded the case to Trial Court for re-writing the judgment on the sole ground that the Magistrate had not himself written the judgment but had dictated the same---Trial Court had given a certificate that the judgment had been written on his dictation and after having gone through it he had signed the same---No exception, therefore, could be taken to the said judgment---Order of Sessions Court remanding the case to Trial Court for rewriting the judgment was consequently set aside and the petition filed under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. was accepted accordingly.---
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (Y of 1898)---
----S. 367---Trial Court is competent to dictate the judgment, but it has to give a certificate to that effect and sign each page of the judgment.
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Petitioner.
Muhammad Abdul Wahid for Respondent.
Mian Najam-uz-Zaman, AA.-G. with Muhammad Iqbal for the State.
ORDER
The facts leading to filing of this petition are that petitioner Munir Khan was tried by Magistrate 1st Class, Khushab for an offence under section 457/380, P.P.C. At the conclusion of trial, vide judgment, dated 29-3-1993 the trial Court gave benefit of doubt and acquitted the petitioner. A revision was filed by complainant Malik Muhammad Yaqub challenging the acquittal. Learned Sessions Judge, Khushab vide judgment, dated 6-12-1993 accepted the revision and remanded the case to the Magistrate with a direction to write the judgment afresh. This direction was given solely on the ground that the judgment had not been written by the trial Court itself, but had been dictated by him.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not incumbent upon the trial Court to write judgment itself; he could have dictated the judgment as was done in the instant case. Submits that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is against law. The proposition was conceded by the learned Assistant Advocate-General. However, learned counsel for the respondent had vehemently argued by stating that even otherwise, the judgment recorded by the learned Magistrate could not be sustained.
3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. A bare reading of section 367, Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the trial Court is competent to dictate the judgment. He has to give a certificate to that effect and sign each page of the judgment. The learned trial Court while announcing the judgment did give a certificate that it was written on his dictation and he I went through the judgment and thereafter signed it. No exception to it can be taken. In these circumstances, the petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is accepted and the order, dated 6-12-1993 of Sessions Judge, Khushab, whereby he remanded the case to the trial Court for re-writing the judgment, is set I aside. The case is sent back to the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab to decide it I on merits in accordance with law.
N.H.Q./M-1654/L Petition accepted.