MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE
This matter involves six consolidated criminal appeals challenging the convictions and sentences imposed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, against the appellant, Muhammad Rafiq, under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's procedure—specifically the recording of verbatim witness statements across multiple cases and the failure to provide a handwritten certificate for the accused's statement—vitiated the trial. The Court held that the trial court's procedure was highly illegal and constituted a non-curable irregularity. The Court set aside the convictions and sentences, remanding the cases for retrial. The key principle laid down is that where the law prescribes a specific procedure for performing a judicial act, such as the certification of an accused's statement under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it must be strictly followed. The mere affixation of a stamp cannot substitute for the mandatory requirement of a certificate in the hand of the court, as strict adherence to procedural mandates is essential for the validity of criminal proceedings.
- Does the recording of verbatim witness statements across multiple cases constitute a curable irregularity?
- Can the affixation of a stamp satisfy the requirement of a certificate in the hand of the court under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the legal consequence of a trial court failing to certify the examination of an accused in its own hand?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' These six appeals viz. Criminal Appeals Nos. 123/76, 124/76, 125/76, 126/76, 127/76 and 128/76 arise from the judgments of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption whereby he on 20-1-1976 convicted Muhammad Rafiq appellant under section 420, P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for 5 months' R.I.' and different amounts of fine in each case. I propose to dispose of these appeals through single judgment.
2. Since after hearing learned counsel for the appellant I feel inclined to set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellant in all six appeals, I need not enter into the merits of the case. I find that in all the six cases the statements of common prosecution witnesses are almost verbatim. This shows that when these witnesses entered witness-box their statements were recorded in one case and a verbatim copy thereof was placed on the record of all other cases. Strangely enough the cross-examination is also verbatim. The procedure adopted by the trial Court being highly illegal, is not a curable irregularity. I further find that the trial Court has not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 364, Cr.P.C. Inasmuch as it has not given certificate in its hand that the examination of the accused/appellant was taken in its presence and hearing and that the record contained a full and true account of statement made by the accused. No doubt the trial Court has affixed stamps to the effect that the statement of accused was recorded in its presence was read over to him and he accepted it as correct. To my mind the affixation of stamp cannot be treated as a certificate in the hand of the Court. It is well-settled that where law provides a procedure for doing a thing in a particular manner then that thing should be done in prescribed manner and in no other way or it should be done at all. That being the legal position, there is no option but to set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellant in all the cases and send back the cases to the trial Court for retrial according to law.
Cited by 7 cases
- MUNIR AHMED vs THE STATE 2001 YLR 124
- MUNIR AHMED Versus STATE 2001 YLR 1249
- MUHAMMAD KHALID vs THE STATE 1998 P Cr. L J 808
- ISHTIAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE 1996 P Cr. L J 1811
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE 1996 P Cr. L J 514
- FARID And Others vs THE STATE 1991 P Cr. L J 1415
- IJLEES AHMAD Versus THE STATE 1988 MLD 167