ALLAH WADHAYO vs QURBAN ALI and 3 others
This criminal acquittal appeal challenged a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat, which had acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 380 and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant contended that the appellate judgment was flawed because it failed to record points for determination, allegedly violating section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and because the appeal was decided within five days. The Court held that section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, located in Part VI, applies to trial court proceedings, not appellate courts, which are governed by Part VII of the same Code. Consequently, there is no statutory obligation for an appellate court to record points for determination. Furthermore, the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the expedited disposal of the appeal. Finding no perversity, arbitrariness, or speculation in the impugned judgment, and noting the double presumption of innocence favoring the respondents, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal.
- Is an appellate court legally required to record points for determination in its judgment under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to appellate court proceedings?
- Does the disposal of an appeal within five days automatically invalidate the judgment without proof of prejudice?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 367(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
OMAR SIAL, J.--This criminal acquittal appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18- 8-2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat. In terms of the said judgment the Respondents were acquitted of a charge under sections'380 and 457, P.P.C.
2. The impugned judgment had arisen from a judgment dated 13-8-2008 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Gambat in terms of which the Respondents were sentenced to R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs,10,000 or S.I. of six months more in 4 default.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents as well as the learned A.
P. G. My observations arc as follows.
4. The learned counsel for the Appellant has raised two grounds in support of his appeal. One, that the impugned judgment does not contain the points for determination hence it is in breach of section 367, Cr.P.C. Two, that the appellate court heard the appeal and passed a judgment in only five days. The learned counsel has not relied on any authority in support of his contentions.
5. Section 367, Cr.P.C. is placed in Chapter XXVI of Part VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Part VI of the said Code pertains only to "Proceedings in prosecutions" before a trial court.
Matters pertaining to appellate and revisional courts were provided in Part VII of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 and said Part of the Code does not contain any provision making it obligatory upon an Appellate Court to record points of determination in its judgment. Reference in this regard may also be made to a case titled Hassan and others v. The State reported at PLD 2013 SC 793 which is a judgment on section 367(5) Cr.P.C. Perhaps the wisdom of the legislature was that in appeal, the reasoning given by the trial court in support of its points for determination is being reviewed. In the current appeal. I observe that the trial court had indeed formulated the point for determination and the same is an admitted position.
6. As regards the appellate court passing a judgment in five days, is not the case of the Appellant that any prejudice was caused to the 1 Appellant as a result of an early hearing of the appeal.
7. The impugned judgment on the face of it is not perverse, arbitrary capricious or speculative. A double presumption of innocence! also works in favour of the Respondents.
8. For the above reasons, this criminal acquittal appeal stands dismissed.