sir is there any citation of power of attorny in criminal cases in which the power of attorny has been finished in criminal cases. if their is, it should be latest citation . i will be thankful to u sir to give me the answer
The criminal case could not be agitated or defended through a special attorney.
2017 PCrLJ 1104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE KHALID MEHMOOD Versus SAFDAR IQBAL
Ss. 420, 468 & 471—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 249-A & 561-A—Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; forgery for purpose of cheating; using as genuine a forged document—power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage—Marriage/Nikkah, validity of —Family Court’s decision on issue of Nikkah—Effect on criminal trial—Complainant lodged the FIR alleging that accused along with co-accused having abducted the wife of his nephew had fabricated a forged Nikahnama showing her marriage with him and used the same as genuine—Accused persons filed application under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C. which was dismissed both by the Trial Court and revisional court—Complainant of the FIR had not produced the alleged husband/his nephew, who was the aggrieved person in real sense, during the course of the investigation of the case —Three incomplete reports under S. 173, Cr.P.C. had been tendered by the police before the final complete report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. had been submitted before the Trial Court, but in none of the reports, the name of the said husband/nephew was mentioned—Lady had filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against the complainant’s nephew, which the Family Court had decreed in her favour declaring her Nikkah with the complainant’s nephew as illegal and holding her Nikkah with the accused as proper and valid—Complainant’s nephew had not challenged the said judgment and decree of the Family Court before any forum—Complainant had admitted in his testimony that he already knew about the said decree for jactitation of marriage and that the lady had treated and endorsed her Nikkah with the accused as correct—Complainant had not let his nephew to appear before the Trial Court either in the present case and he had merely acted as his attorney —criminal case could not have been agitated or defended through a special attorney —Issue of Nikkah between the parties had effectively been decided by the Family Court, and the decision of the Family Court, would have a binding effect on the decision in the trial of present case —Accused and the lady, in their statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., had categorically admitted and accepted each other as husband and wife—Lady had even delivered a child during pendency of her suit for jactitation of marriage—Genuineness and sanctity of marriage had stood doubly stamped , one by the judgment and decree of the Family Court, and the other, by the birth of the child—Matrimonial relationship of the accused persons thus had stood proved, as the same had got legitimacy with the passage of time—Marriage would have an overriding effect on the trial by the court—High Court, quashing the proceedings of the trial, acquitted the accused persons—Application under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C. filed before the Trial Court was allowed accordingly.
1 Comment
Gull Hassan Khan
09/04/2019
The criminal case could not be agitated or defended through a special attorney.
2017 PCrLJ 1104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALID MEHMOOD Versus SAFDAR IQBAL
Ss. 420, 468 & 471—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 249-A & 561-A—Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; forgery for purpose of cheating; using as genuine a forged document—power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage—Marriage/Nikkah, validity of —Family Court’s decision on issue of Nikkah—Effect on criminal trial—Complainant lodged the FIR alleging that accused along with co-accused having abducted the wife of his nephew had fabricated a forged Nikahnama showing her marriage with him and used the same as genuine—Accused persons filed application under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C. which was dismissed both by the Trial Court and revisional court—Complainant of the FIR had not produced the alleged husband/his nephew, who was the aggrieved person in real sense, during the course of the investigation of the case —Three incomplete reports under S. 173, Cr.P.C. had been tendered by the police before the final complete report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. had been submitted before the Trial Court, but in none of the reports, the name of the said husband/nephew was mentioned—Lady had filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against the complainant’s nephew, which the Family Court had decreed in her favour declaring her Nikkah with the complainant’s nephew as illegal and holding her Nikkah with the accused as proper and valid—Complainant’s nephew had not challenged the said judgment and decree of the Family Court before any forum—Complainant had admitted in his testimony that he already knew about the said decree for jactitation of marriage and that the lady had treated and endorsed her Nikkah with the accused as correct—Complainant had not let his nephew to appear before the Trial Court either in the present case and he had merely acted as his attorney —criminal case could not have been agitated or defended through a special attorney —Issue of Nikkah between the parties had effectively been decided by the Family Court, and the decision of the Family Court, would have a binding effect on the decision in the trial of present case —Accused and the lady, in their statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., had categorically admitted and accepted each other as husband and wife—Lady had even delivered a child during pendency of her suit for jactitation of marriage—Genuineness and sanctity of marriage had stood doubly stamped , one by the judgment and decree of the Family Court, and the other, by the birth of the child—Matrimonial relationship of the accused persons thus had stood proved, as the same had got legitimacy with the passage of time—Marriage would have an overriding effect on the trial by the court—High Court, quashing the proceedings of the trial, acquitted the accused persons—Application under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C. filed before the Trial Court was allowed accordingly.
Write a comment: