Sunday, March 2, 2025

Procedure S. 476 Cr.Pc

                   

https://youtu.be/4kCjrWc8dnM?si=qth-iFcy8ha8jy8g

               


                      2025 LHC33

   CRIMINAL APPEAL No.40068/2020 

Asif Atta   vs.  The State, etc. 

Date of hearing  15.01.2025 

Ref. “S.M. REHMATULLAH versus THE STATE” (PLD 1986 Karachi 560) 

* 195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance: (a)  Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants: Of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate;  

(b)    Prosecution for certain offences against public justice: Of any offence punishable under arty of the following sections of the same Code, namely Sections 193, 194, 195, 196. 199. 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except, on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate; or 

(c)     Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence: Of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding,

  •√ Except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. 

•√ Procedure for trial of offences mentioned in section 195, sub-section (1), clause (b) or clause (c) is regulated under section 476 of Cr.P.C. relevant part is reproduced; 

476. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195: When any offence referred to in Section 195, sub-section (1), clause(b) or clause (c), has been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, 

* The Court may take cognizance of the offence and try the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII.   

•√This section directs summary trial under chapter XXII of Cr.P.C; Other court. 

----------------

480. Procedure in certain cases of contempt:

 (1) When any such offence as is described in Section 175, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180 or Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code is committed in the view or presence of any Civil Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day may, if it thinks fit, take cognizance of the offence and sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees; and, in default of payment to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid. 

•√ But when such offences are committed before himself or 

√ in contempt of his lawful authority, or 

•√ is brought under his notice, as such Judge or Magistrate (except Judge of High Court) in the course of a judicial proceeding,

°√  He shall not try it himself. This command of law is incorporated in section 487 of Cr.P.C. which is as under; 

487. Certain Judges and Magistrates not to try offences referred to in Section 195 when committed before themselves: (1) Except as provided in Sections 476, 480 and 485 no Judge of a Criminal Court or Magistrate, other than a Judge of a High Court, shall try any person for any offence referred to in Section 195, when such offence is committed before himself or in contempt of his authority, or is brought under his notice, as such Judge or Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceeding. 


*+ In the present case learned Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellant under section 174 of PPC for his failure to produce the accused against whom notice was issued on petition for cancellation of his bail. Section 174 falls in category of offences mentioned in section 195, sub-section (1), clause (a), therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge was not authorized to sentence the appellant by himself, rather complaint should have been forwarded to the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter,

No comments:

Post a Comment