MUNSHI vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition arises from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for assaulting a woman to outrage her modesty, which was upheld in appeal. The core legal question is whether the failure of the trial court to append the requisite certificate under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the statement of the accused recorded under Section 342/364 vitiates the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the omission to provide the mandatory certificate is not a mere curable irregularity but an illegality that cannot be sustained. Consequently, the Court accepted the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for retrial commencing from the stage of examining the accused in accordance with law.
- Does the failure of a trial court to give the requisite certificate under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the conviction unsustainable?
- Is the omission to provide the certificate under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable irregularity or an illegality?
- What is the appropriate order when a trial court fails to properly record the statement of the accused under Section 342 and Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The facts giving rise to this revision are that Munshi petitioner was tried under section 354, P.P.C. By Magistrate 1st Class, Narowal on the allegation that he launched assault on Mst. Rani to outrage her modesty. On the conclusion of the trial he was convicted under section 354, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,500 in default thereof to further S.1. For three months.
The appeal filed by him failed on 18-10-1984, hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while pointing out legal infirmity in recording statement of the petitioner/accused under section 342/364 Cr.P.C. Submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to give requisite certificate under section 364, Cr.P.C. And as such the conviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert him.
3 I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as I find that the learned Magistrate has failed to give requisite certificate under section 364, Cr.P.C. To the effect that the statement of the accused/petitioner was recorded in his presence and hearing and that the record contained a full and true account of the statement made by him. The omission to my mind is not curable irregularity but is an illegality. That being the position, there is no option but to accept the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and send back the case to the trial Court for retrial from the stage of the examination of the petitioner/accused in accordance with law. .
Cited by 9 cases
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another vs THE STATE 2004 MLD 1235
- MUNIR AHMED vs THE STATE 2001 YLR 124
- MUNIR AHMED Versus STATE 2001 YLR 1249
- ALLAH RAKHIO and another vs THE STATE 2001 P Cr. L J 1959
- ABDUL SATTAR and 3 others vs THE STATE 2001 P Cr. L J 1945
- SIKANDAR vs THE STATE 1990 P Cr. L J 396
- ASHRAF MIAN vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 1079
- MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus STATE 1987 PCRLJ 1922
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE 1986 PLD Lahore 34