GULZAR AHMAD vs THE STATE and 6 others
This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate acquitting the respondents under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under Section 337-A(ii)-F(vi)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether two cross-cases arising out of the same incident and FIR ought to be tried and decided together. The Lahore High Court held that the rule of propriety and justice demands that both cases arising out of the same incident and FIR should be taken up together, as the prosecution version in one serves as the defence in the other. Consequently, the impugned acquittal order was set aside, the matter was remanded to the Magistrate to try both cases together, and a direction was issued to conclude the proceedings within four months. The key principle laid down is that counter-cases arising from the same transaction or incident must be adjudicated together to ensure a fair and proper appraisal of the evidence.
- Must cross-cases arising out of the same incident and FIR be taken up and tried together?
- Does a failure to try counter-cases together warrant setting aside an acquittal order?
- Can a trial magistrate acquit accused persons under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without considering a connected counter-case?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Order, dated 21-11-1998 passed by Mr. Kabir Ahmed, Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Sohawa, District Jhelum has been assailed through the instant appeal. The case F.I.R. No,35, dated 23-7-1996, was registered against the accused under section 337-A(ii)-F(vi)/34, P.P.C. With Police Station Domali. The respondents were sent up to face trial in the aforesaid Court who examined two witnesses, thereafter, the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved on behalf of respondents and learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused from the charges levelled against them.
2. Referring the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that in fact there are two cases, the other was the counter-case which has arisen out of the same F.I.R., wherein Gulzar Ahmed alongwith his two co-accused have been arrayed as accused persons. As both the cases have arisen out of one and the same incident and also the same F.I.R., therefore, the rule of propriety and justice demands that both should have been taken up together because prosecution version in one case is the defence in other. The learned trial Magistrate, as such has erred in taking up one case in absence of the other whereas both cases should have been decided together. Separate judgments, however, have to be passed in each case. The learned counsel for the appellant as such is aggrieved and prejudiced with the manner in which the matter has been disposed. The impugned order, dated 21-11-1998, whereby the respondents stand acquitted is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Magistrate to take up both the cases together and thereafter to pass proper judgment. Before parting with this order, I would like to clarify that this order will not in any manner influence the learned Magistrate regarding respective merits of the cases. As regards, the respondents deserve acquittal or conviction the same will be determined on its own evidence, material or relevant merits. It has been prayed that some time may be specified so that both the cases be decided within the prescribed time. Prayer being reasonable is allowed.
Both the cases may be concluded within four months w,e,f, receipt of this order.