MUHAMMAD HAMAYUN vs SHAMSULLAH — 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---Pakistan 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---Jurisdiction of Sessions Court---Scope. The grievance 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. The main ground which prevailed upon the Sessions Court for transferring the case to the Judicial Magistrate was that the injuries were not caused on vital parts, despite the fact that the accused persons were armed with knives; therefore, it was held that provisions of S.324, P.P.C. were not attracted in the instant case. Held: Section 324, P.P.C. evidently manifested that if any act was done by any person 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 was 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 the 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 besides other injuries, which were obviously on vital parts and could have caused death due to penetration into any internal organ or excessive bleeding. Therefore, the observations of the Sessions Court were misconstrued and contrary to the record. Bare perusal of S.190(3), 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, the said procedure had already been followed twice; firstly, when the Judicial Magistrate, after receipt of the final report under S.173, Cr.P.C., transmitted the case file to the Sessions Court, which on 21.02.2020 framed the charge, and secondly 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 transferred the case vide impugned order dated 23.11.2023. The Sessions Court, while framing charge on 21.02.2020, had indicted the respondents under Ss.324, 337-AF, 147, 148 & 149, P.P.C. after applying judicial mind, whereafter the said Court had no justification for transferring the case, because ultimately, on conclusion of trial, it could have acquitted the accused respondents from the charge of attempt to murder as contemplated under S.324, P.P.C. Had it been a case of an attack by one accused upon one person, then repeating of 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 abdomen and chest of injured persons according to their capability and force, which clearly demonstrated that such injuries could have proved fatal. Thus, at such a belated stage, transfer of the case for want of jurisdiction was unwarranted. The Sessions Court had ample material for assumption of jurisdiction and proceeding with the trial; therefore, the Sessions Court had erred in law as well as facts. Consequently, the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 passed 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 direction to proceed with the trial in accordance with law on merits. Petition was allowed accordingly.

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

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ