MUHAMMAD HAMAYUN vs SHAMSULLAH Ss — 2026 PCRLJ 393 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD HAMAYUN VS SHAMSULLAH Ss. 435, 439-a, 526 & 190---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-a, 337-D, 337-F, 147, 148 & 149---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah, jaifah and causing different types of "ghayr-jaifah, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Transfer of case---Scope---Grouse of the petitioner was that the Sessions Court vide impugned order dated 23.11.2023 had transferred the case for want of jurisdiction to the Judicial Magistrate without any legal justification---Main ground which prevailed upon the Sessions Court for transfer of the case to the Judicial Magistrate was that the injuries were not caused on the vital parts, despite the fact that the accused persons were armed with knives, thus it was held that provisions of S.324 of P.P.C were not attracted in the instant case---Held: Section 324 of P.P.C evidently manifested that if any act was done by anyone with the intention or knowledge that by such act he could be held guilty of committing qatl-i-amd of any person, then he would be punished for a term, which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine and if any hurt is also caused to any person by such offender, he shall also be liable to the punishment provided for such hurt caused by him---Perusal of the Medico-Legal Certificates demonstrated that petitioner had received a stab wound on the right side of his abdomen, whereas injured "MS" had also received a stab wound on the right side of his chest, beside the other injuries, which were obviously on the vital parts and could have caused death due to penetration into any of their organs or result of excessive bleeding, thus the observations of the Sessions Court were misconstrued and contrary to the record---Bare perusal of S.190 (3) of Cr.P.C. clearly enunciated that a Magistrate taking cognizance under subsection (1) of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session shall, without recording any evidence, send the case to the Court of Session for trial---In the instant case, it was done twice i.e., firstly, when Judicial Magistrate after receipt of the final report under S.173 of Cr.P.C transmitted the case file to the Sessions Court, who on 21.02.2020 framed the charge and then when the case was once again transferred by the Judicial Magistrate on 27.07.2023, thus there was absolutely no occasion for the Sessions Court to have had transferred the case vide impugned order dated 23.11.2023---So be it, the Sessions Court while framing charge on 21.02.2020 indicted the respondents under Ss.324, 337-aDF, 147, 148 & 149 of P.P.C after applying judicious mind, whereafter the said Court had no justification for transferring the case, because ultimately on conclusion of the trial, it could have acquitted the accused respondents from the charge for the indictment of attempt to murder as contemplated under S.324 of P.P.C---Had it been a case of a attack of 'an accused' upon 'a person', then repeating of the blows could have been a ground, but not in the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, where more than four persons were indicted for making assaults with knives, causing stab wounds on the abdomen and chest to the injured persons according to their capability and force, which clearly demonstrated that it could have been a fatal blow---Thus at such a belated stage, transfer of the case for want of jurisdiction was unwarranted---Sessions Court for assumption of jurisdiction had prima facie ample material for proceeding with the trial, thus the Sessions Court had erred in law as well as in facts---Consequently, the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 drawn by the Sessions Court was set aside and the case file was directed to be transferred from the file of Judicial Magistrate to the file of Sessions Court with the direction to proceed with trial in accordance with law on its merit---Petition was allowed, accordingly.

MUHAMMAD HAMAYUN vs SHAMSULLAH Ss — 2026 PCRLJ 393 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ