This document provides an overview of criminal trial procedures in Pakistan. It begins by defining what is meant by a "trial" and discusses the relevant legal provisions. It then outlines the key pre-trial steps that must be taken, including determining jurisdiction and place of trial, issues of juvenile status, and cognizance of offenses. The document also discusses processes for procuring accused attendance, supplying document copies, right to counsel, and procedures for joint complaint and police cases. Overall, the document serves as a reference guide to the stages and considerations involved in criminal trials under Pakistani law.

1. SESSION
TRIAL
BY
Nazir Ahmad Gajana
District & Sessions Judge
Faisalabad

2. WHAT IS A
SESSION
TRIAL?
It is not defined in
Cr.PC

3. WHAT IS MEANT BY
“TRIAL”
The expression trial is not
defined in the Cr.P.C; however,
it may be defined as under:-
1) “A formal examination of
evidence in a court of law in
order to decide if a person is
guilty of a crime”

4. 2)In other words a trial is a kind of
debate between two groups called
“parties” who have different
stories or versions of what
actually happened. Trials are used
to end disagreements when the
two groups involved cannot agree
on the facts. A criminal trial
resolves the question of guilt
when someone is charged with
committing a criminal offence.

5. 3) A judicial examination in
accordance with law of land
of a cause either civil or
criminal of the issues
between the parties, whether
of law or fact, before a Court
that has proper jurisdiction
(Black Law Dictionary 6th Edition-
1504)

6. 4) The conclusion by a competent
tribunal of question in issue in
legal proceedings, whether civil
or criminal.
(Stroud Judicial Dictionary 3rd Edition Vol-4, page 3092)
5) Generally it refers to a judicial
proceedings which ends in
conviction or acquittal.
(PLD-1960-Dacca-205)

7. Relevant Provisions
TRIAL
(CHAPTER XXII-A)
(Ss. 265-A TO 265-N, CR.PC)

8. Before a regular trial can
commence, the following pre-trial
steps are necessary to be taken:-
i)The determination of place of trial;
ii)Determination of jurisdiction
iii)Determination of Juvenility etc.,
iv)Cognizance of offence by the court;
v)Issue of processes to procure the attendance
of the accused persons;
vi)Other matters, such as
vii) Supplying copies
viii) Accused’s counsel
ix) Trial of complaint and police case arising
out of same offence.

9. 1. Place of trial
Chapter XV, sub-Chapter A, Cr.P.C makes
provisions for the place of trial. It consist of
Section 177 to 189. By its first Section,
Section 177, it provides that “Every offence
shall Ordinarily be enquired into and tried
by a court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction it was committed”. It gives
effect to the general principle of law that all
crime is local and that the jurisdiction to try
a person for an offence depends upon the
crime having been committed within the
area of such jurisdiction. Section 178 to 187
provides the determination of place of trial.

10. 2. Determination of Jurisdiction
(like ATA ETC)
1 The very first duty of the Court is to
see that if it has the jurisdiction
over the matter ?
2 To examine this point at an initial
stage, is a step to save the valuable
time of the Court.
3. Don’t wait for the parties to raise
the plea of jurisdiction.
4. Particularly case falling under Anti
Terrorism Act, 1997.

11. 3. Determination of Juvenility etc.
RELEVANT CASE LAW
1. Sultan Ahmad vs. Addl. Sessions Judge-I Mianwali & 2
others
PLD-2004-SC-758 (LEADING JUDGMENT)
2. Zafar Iqbal vs. Ehsan Ali & another
PLD-2008-Lahore-26
3. Mohammad Anwar & others vs. The State
1976-Pcrlj-1325
4. Mohammad Ishaq vs. Mohammad Nadeem
2002-SCMR-440
5. Mohammad Yousaf vs. The State
2005 Pcrlj-1719
6. Mehboob Ahmad vs. The State
2002 Pcrlj-2034
7. Mohammad Akram vs. Mohammad Haleem
2002 Pcrlj-633

12. Determination of Juvenility
1. Don’t wait for the application from
accused for his claim as Juvenile.
2. Any one from the side of accused like
his advocate, father, brother can raise
such plea.
3. Inquiry has to be made in view of
section 7 of the Juvenile Justice
System Ordinance, 2000.
4. Initially it is the accused who produces
the documents relating to his birth
entry like birth certificate.
5. Unless and until proved to be forged or
fabricated the birth entry does
constitute evidence of its contents.

13. 6. For the purpose of inquiry with
reference to age of a juvenile, Court
was bound to requisition the original
record, summon and examine the
authors and custodians of such record
and documents in order to determine
the genuineness of the same.
7. Where birth certificate and other
documents issued by Educational
Institutions giving the date of birth of
an accused are available on record
then unless such certificates are held
to be fraudulent and/or bogus they are
to be relied upon.

14. 8. If authenticity of birth entry documents
are found above board and there is no
serious challenge from other side, than
it is wrong to say that in every case
Medical Examination is compulsory.
9. When ever a question of the age of an
accused person is raised or arises, he
must be subject to medical test unless
strong reasons existing or could be
offered for not doing so.
10. It is necessary when there is no other
evidence or the documents are under
serious challenge.

15. 11.Accused must take plea of
minority at the time of
investigation so the police
may be able to collect the
evidence.
12.Plea at a belated stage,
adverse inference is to be
drawn.

16. 13.Medical opinion cannot
override evidence of birth
certificate.
14.The ossification test can only
give a clue as to the age but
cannot be a conclusive proof
and this exercise has to be
resorted only when there is
no other proof available like
the school leaving certificate
or birth certificate and the
Court is in a quandary about
age of an accused.

17. 4. Cognizance of offence by the
court
Section 190 Cr.P.C provides for cognizance of
offence by Magistrate by its sub section (1) All
Magistrates of the first class or any other Magistrate
specially empowered by the Provincial Government
on the recommendation of High Court may take
cognizance of any offence:
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence;
(b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by
any police officer;
(c) upon information received from any person
other than a police officer, or upon his knowledge
or suspicion;

18. REPORT
U/S 173 CR.PC
190 (b)
MAGISTRATE 1ST
CLASS
SESSIONS JUDGE
193 CR.PC
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
193 (2) CR.PC
COMPLAINT
190 (a)
OF ITS OWN
190 (C)

19. How to take cognizance by an
Additional Sessions Judge ?
S. 193. Cognizance of offences
by Courts of Session: (1) Except as
otherwise expressly provided by this
Code or by any other law for the
time being in force no Court of
Session shall take cognizance of any
offence as a Court of original
jurisdiction unless the case has been
sent to it under Section 190, sub-
section (2).

20. For what cognizance is to be
taken?
1. Court is to take cognizance of
offence and not offenders.
2. Court is competent to call/summon
any person and to join his as co-
accused during the trial.
3. Generally while taking the
cognizance the accused placed in
column No. 2 of challan or
discharged during investigation are
to be summoned to face trial.

21. 5. Process to procure the
attendance of accused person
The first procedural question concern
the attendance of the accused at trial.
If in custody, the accused is brought to
court from prison; if on bail, the
accused is informed of the time and
date of trial and required to attend.
Chapter XVII Cr.P.C is titled “of
commencement of proceedings before
the court” it has two sections namely
Section 204 and 205.

22. Section 204 provides that if in the
opinion of the court taking cognizance
of an offence there is sufficient ground
for proceeding, it shall issue summon or
warrant as the case may be.
All the processes to procure the
attendance of persons, accused as well
as witnesses, the relevant provisions
are to be found in Chapter VI Cr.P.C “Of
processes to compel appearance”

23. Supplying of copies
(Section 265-C)
After the court has procured the attendance of
accused persons, the first step in the trial of cases is
the supply of certain statements and documents to
the accused mentioned in Section 265-C Cr.P.C
Omission of non-supplying of copies
Suppose that a statement recorded under section 161
or 164 Cr.P.C is not supplied to the accused. This will
be contravention of Section 265-C Cr.P.C. The question
is what is the effect of its contravention. The important
judgment on this point is “Faiz Ahmad Vs. The State
(PLD 1960 S.C 8). In short, omission or failure to supply
copies of statement recorded under Section 161 or 164
Cr.P.C by itself will not vitiate trial and the question
ultimately Will be whether this omission or failure had
caused any prejudice to the accused in his right of
cross-examination.

24. Accused’s Counsel
This important preliminary step before
the commencement of the trial is to see
that the accused’s right to consult and
be defended by a legal practitioner of
his choice guaranteed by Article 10 of
the Constitution is not denied. Besides
Article 10 of the Constitution, Section
340(1) of Cr.P.C provides for a right to a
person of an accused of an offence
before criminal trial or against whom
proceedings are initiated under Cr.P.C
to be defended by a pleader.

25. P L D 1957 Dacca 101
Before Ispahani and Murshed, JJ
MOSLEMUDDIN SIKDAR
versus
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
EAST PAKISTAN and others
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 7 (I.)-Court's
duty to conduct trial so as to afford proper
opportunity to accused to consult counsel
even though he does not ask to be
represented by one-Trial in contravention of
Art. 7 (1)

26. Procedure for the trial of
complaint case and police case
arising out of the same offence
As earlier discussed that cognizance
may be taken by a court on complaint as
well police report. Now in respect of an
offence, there may be a police case only
or there may be a complaint case only. But
there may be a cases in which out of an
offence arises two cases, one being a
police case and other being a complaint
case. For example, the informant in a
police case names three persons A, B & C
as culprits of a murder in the FIR.

27. The Police after investigation finds that
the offence was committed by A & B only
and that C was innocent. Dissatisfied with
the investigation, the first informer or any
other heir of the victim may file a
complaint against A, B & C. In this way,
there will be two cases before the court
arising out of the same offence. This is the
stage when the court is confronted with
the question how to proceed with the trial
of such cases.

28. Here before framing of charge, the trial Judge
will pass a speaking order regarding the
procedure to be adopted by him.
MANZOOR AKBAR TURK CASE (2008 M.L.D 728)
 If the court of sessions has taken
cognizance on the basis of the complaint and
report of the police officer;
 It is required to process both the cases
in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 193 Cr.P.C read with Section 204
ibid
 Till this stage, both the case will be
dealt with independently i.e. accused
summoned in the complaint case or in
the challan case would be dealt with
separately, supplied copies of the
required documents U/S 265-C(1) & 265-
C(2) Cr.P.C as the case may be.

29.  Before framing the charge, the trial
judge will pass a speaking order
regarding the procedure to be adopted
by him;
 If the private complaint and the
police case are to be tried in
consolidated manner,
 If the private complaint and the
police case are to be tried
independently.

30. The leading authority on this point is
I. NUR ELAHI CASE (PLD 1966 Supreme
Court 708) Ratio decidendi (Majority view)
The complaint case will be taken
up first for trial by the trial court.
Shall examine the witnesses mentioned in the list
annexed with the complaint as PWs.
May call the witnesses mentioned in the police challan if
they are not already examined on behalf of the
complainant as court witnesses U/S 540-A of Criminal
Procedure Code providing both the parties of the list an
opportunity to cross examine them.

31. If the trial results in conviction;
 It would be for the public prosecutor to consider
whether or not he should withdraw from the
prosecution with the permission of the court U/S
494 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the police
challan case.
If the trial ends in an acquittal;
 The Public Prosecutor would consider whether
the police version has not so seriously been
damaged by what has been brought out in the
first trial as to justify withdrawal of the
prosecution.

32. If the Public Prosecutor does not opt for
withdrawal of the prosecution of the challan
case;
 The second trial would be allowed to its normal
conclusion,
 The parties would have the advantage of utilizing
the material placed on the record of the earlier trial
by way of cross examination of relevant witnesses
as permitted by law i.e. by Public prosecutor
under Art. 150 and by the defence during
cross examination.

33. II. The raito in Nur Elahi case was considered
in “Muhammad Bohra v. State” (PLD 1989
Lahore 18)
In Muhammad Bohra v. State, for the Murder of one Barkat
Ali, three persons named as culprits in the FIR. They
Muhammad Bohra, Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad
Ashiq. Last name was killed before the trial. As a result of
investigation, the police however, found that the above
named three persons were innocent of the offence and
persons responsible for killing Barkat Ali were Mansha
and Khushi Muhammad. Accordingly, in the final report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the names of Mansh and Khushi
Muhammad were placed in column No. 3 and those of
Muhammad Bohra and Muhammad Hussain in Column No.
2 of the Challan. The first informant filed a private
complaint against Muhammad Bohra, Muhammad Hussain
and Muhammad Ashiq.
The ratio in Nur Ellahi case was considered in Muhammad
Bohra case and complaint case was taken up first

34. The rule in Nur Ellahi case does not however
lay down an invariable rule that the complaint
case is always to be tried first. There may be
following situations:-
i) Complaint case shall be tried firstly
ii) Both case shall be consolidated
iii) Both run simultaneously
Nur Ellahi Case
If the set of the accused are different, the
complaint case shall be tried firstly

35. If the set of accused are different in complaint case and challan case, the principle
of Noor Elahi’s case is to be followed i.e.
 The trial judge will proceed with the complaint case first, frame the formal
charge, record evidence of the complaint case as PWs, thereafter, he will
summon the witnesses of challan case, if not already examined as Court
Witnesses and provide the complainant and the accused an opportunity to
cross examine them.
 Thereafter, he will record the statements of the accused and defence
witnesses (if any), completing the process of summoning up U/S 265-G
Cr.P.C
 Then he will announce the judgment in the complaint case
 In case of conviction of the accused in the complaint case,
 The prosecutor would be given an opportunity to withdraw the police
report case.
 If the prosecution is withdrawn the matter would end.
 Otherwise, the court shall proceed with the police case, frame the
charge, examine the witnesses of the prosecution and then record the
evidence of the witnesses of the complaint case as CWs by providing
opportunities to the prosecution and the accused to cross examine the
witnesses, record statements of the accused and DWs (if any) and
summoning up the case announce the final judgment.
III. MANZOOR AKBAR TURK CASE (2008 M.L.D 728)

36. CONSOLIDATION
IV.ATA JILANI CASE (1980 P.Cr.L.J 901)
Ratio decidendi (Majority view)
 Where the prosecution story is the same but only the
number of the accused connected with the
commission of the offences differ.
 Both such cases be consolidated and tried together.
 One of two cases would be taken up first in which, the
larger set of accused is named.
 Such witnesses who are not examined in the case
firstly taken up but whose names appear in the other
case be examined as court witnesses U/S 540-A
Cr.P.C

37. Both Run Simultaneously
if the challan case and the complaint
case have been filed by different
parties containing different versions
and are directed against different sets
of accused persons then in such a
situation the trial of the complaint
case and the challan case are to be
held simultaneously and side by
side and not one after the other.

38. V. 2008 Y L R 1144
Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Haleema Bibi
Versus
The STATE
Ss.173 & 200---`Challan case' and `complaint case'---Which is to be tried
first---Mode of trial---Two situations---Distinction---Where the same party
lodges an F.I.R., and after having remained dissatisfied with the
investigation carried out by the police files private complaint in respect of
the same allegation, then in such a situation the complaint case is to be
tired first and, if needed, the challan case is to be tried later---Legal
position is quite different “if the challan case and the complaint case
have been filed by different parties containing different versions and
are directed against different sets of accused persons then in such a
situation the trial of the complaint case and the challan case are to be
held simultaneously and side by side and not one after the other.”

39. VI. PLD 2016 S.C 70
Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
NIAZ AHMED
Vs
HASRAT MAHMOOD
Ss. 154 & 200---Rival parties---Case of cross-
versions---Trial of such cases---Procedure---
Different versions of same incident advanced by
rival parties through cross-case s containing
different sets of accused persons---Trial of such
cross-case s was to be held simultaneously
and side by side.

40. VII. 2012 P Cr. L J 231
Before Abdus Sattar Asghar, J
ABDUL SHAKOOR
Vs
The State
Report under S.173, Cr.P.C. was submitted against accused persons and case
was fixed for evidence---Accused party advanced their cross-version before the
Police, but same was dropped during investigation---One of accused persons
lodged a private complaint under Ss.302/324/148/149/506/354, P.P.C. against
complainant party regarding the same occurrence---Trial Court passed
impugned order to continue the trial in the private complaint filed by accused
and stayed the proceedings in the prosecution case---Prosecution case and
private complaint were cross cases and manifested two different versions with
two sets of accused and two sets of witnesses to be examined--- Trial
Court while passing impugned order had misconceived legal principles by
staying the proceedings in the prosecution case---Propriety demanded that
two cases should be heard together by the same court to avoid conflicting
judgments---Impugned order was set aside and the Trial Court was
directed to hear both the cases together to avoid any
prejudice to the complainant and probability of
conflicting decisions.

41. When charge is to be framed
265-D When charge to be framed: If,
after perusing the police report or, as
the case may be, the complaint, and
all other documents and statements
filed by the prosecution, the Court is
of opinion that there is ground for
proceeding with the trial of the
accused it shall frame in writing a
charge against the accused.

42.  As regards trial before the Magistrates, Section 242 Cr.P.C deals
with framing of Charge and Section 265-D Cr.P.C deals with the
framing of charge in trial before the High Court & Court of Session.
Section 242 Section 265-D
Charge to be framed.--
When the accused appears
or is brought before the
Magistrate, a formal charge
shall be framed relating to
the offence of which he is
accused and he shall be
asked whether he admits
that he has committed the
offence with which he is
charged
When charge is to be
framed. If, after perusing the
police report or, as the case
may be, the complaint, and all
other documents and
statements filed by the
prosecution, the Court is of
opinion that there is ground
for proceeding with the trial
of the accused it shall
frame in writing a charge
against the accused.

43.  The above said sections shows that in
Magisterial trial there is formal charge
whereas in Session trial, charge is not
formal rather a safe guard has been
provided by the legislation by inserting the
phrase “If, after perusing the police report
or, as the case may be, the complaint, and
all other documents and statements filed by
the prosecution, the Court is of opinion that
there is ground for proceeding with the trial
of the accused”
 In this context, there is difference in
grounds of acquittal provided in Section
249-A Cr.P.C and 265-K Cr.P.C

44. 249-A Cr.P.C 265-K Cr.P.C
Power of Magistrate to
acquit accused at any
stage.--Nothing in this
Chapter shall be deemed to
prevent a Magistrate from
acquitting an accused at any
stage of the case if, after
hearing the prosecutor and
the accused and for reasons
to be recorded, he considers
that the
i) charge is groundless or
ii)that there is no probability
of the accused being
convicted of any offence.]
Power of Court to acquit
accused at any stage.--
Nothing in this Chapter
shall be deemed to prevent
a Court from acquitting an
accused at any stage of
the case; if, after hearing
the prosecutor and the
accused and for reasons to
be recorded, it considers
that there is no
probability of the
accused being convicted
of any offence.

45. Now question arises in session trial that if
after perusing Police report etc, if the court
consider that there is no ground to proceed,
what course may be adopted by the court?
Discharge under Section 265-D Cr.P.C, In
this regard wisdom has been drawn from
the following judgments of Hon’ble Superior
Courts:-
CHIEF EHTESAB COMMISSIONER, CHIEF EHTESAB
COMMISISONER'S SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD
Vs.
AFTAB AHMAD KHAN SHERPAO, EX-CHIEF
MINSITER, N.-W.F.P. PESHAWAR and others (P L
D 2005 Supreme Court 408),

46. I. 1998 M L D 209
Muhammad Nawaz Khan Gandapur and
Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJD
THE STATE
versus
AFTAB AHMED KHAN SHERPAO and another-
“Where facts alleged by prosecution did not
disclose commission of any offence, Court could
not desist from discharging accused under S.265-
D. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Accused were
discharged in terms of S.265-D, Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898.”

47. II. 1993 P.Cr.L.J 1660 Qasier Ahmed
Hamidi, J
UMUBYEYI CHRISTINE
Versus
THE STATE
“S. 265-D---Charge, framing of---
Framing of charge is not an automatic
process and if the material on record is
not sufficient the Court may discharge
the accused”
.

48. III. 1983 P.Cr.L.J 1428 Ali Nawaz
Budhani, J
MST. ASHRAFUNNISA
Versus
THE STATE AND 8 OTHERS
“S. 265-D---Discharge of criminal
case– Appraisal of evidence---Recording
of evidence after having assessed entire
material on which prosecution based its
case, held, a futile exercise – Discharge
of respondents under S. 265-D upheld.”

49. PLEA OF GUILTY
265-E Cr.PC
1) What is plea of guilty? Admission
of accusation.
2) Discretion of court either to
convict or proceed with trial.
(Normally in case of capital
charge trial should proceed)

50. Whether plea of
guilty/confession can be
recorded on intermediate
stages i.e. after framing of
charge and prior to
recording of statement
under section 342 Cr.PC ?

51. 1) The power given to the trial Court to
hear the accused can be exercised at
any time when the accused wants to be
heard.
2) Powers of Court untrammeled by any
condition of fixation of time or stage
when confession is to be recorded.
3) If accused does not plead guilty at the
time of framing of charge but on second
thought changes his mind and speaks
truth at any stage during trial it is not
necessary for trial court to proceed
further.

52. 1. Haider & others V. State PLD 1950 Lah-
247.
2. Nazir Ahmad V. State PLJ 1975 Cr.C-23
3. Mst. Nawab Bibi V. State NLR 1991 SD-
413.
4. Younas Khan v. Sate PLJ-2004-Cr.C-143)
5. Sarfraz Khan V. State 1985 Pcrlj 167,
6. Faiz Mohammad V. State 1986 Pcrlj 2250,
7. Habib-ur-Rehman V. State 1997 Pcrlj 1930
&
8. Mohammad Sadiq V. State 1998 MLD-243.
9. 2009 MLD-1219

53. After framing of charge,
Necessary Steps
1. The Court shall proceed to hear the complainant
(if any) and take all such evidence as may be
produced in support of the prosecution.
2. Court is not be bound to hear any person as
complainant in any case in which the complaint
has been made by a Court.
3. The Court shall ascertain from the Public
Prosecutor or, as the case may be from the
complainant, the names of any persons likely to
be acquainted with the facts of the case and to
be able to give evidence for the prosecution, and
shall summon such persons to give evidence
before it.

54. 4. Court may refuse to summon any such
witness, if it is of opinion that such witness is
being called for the purpose of vexation or
delay or defeating "the ends of justice. Such
ground shall be recorded by the Court in-
writing.
5. When the examination of the witnesses for the
prosecution and the examination of any of the
accused are concluded, the accused shall be
asked whether he means to adduce evidence
6. If the accused puts in any written statement,
the Court shall file it with the record.
7. If the accused, or any one of several accused,
says that ha means to adduce evidence, the
Court shall call on the accused to enter on his
defense and produce his evidence.

55. 8. If the accused, or any one of several accused, after
entering on his defense, applies to the Court to issue any
process for compelling the attendance of any witness for
examination or the production of any document or other
thing, the Court shall issue such process unless it
considers that the application is made for the purpose of
vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice. such
'ground shall be recorded by the Court in writing.
9. in cases Where the accused, or any one of several
accused, does not adduce evidence in his defence, the
Court shall, on the close of the prosecution case and
examination (if any) of the accused, call upon the
prosecutor to sum up his case where after the accused
shall make a reply –
10. In cases where the accused, or any of the several
accused, examines evidence, in his defense, the Court
shall, on the close of the defense case, call upon the
accused to sum up the case where after the prosecutor
shall make a reply.

56. STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 342 CR.PC
(High Court Rules & Orders Volume III
Chapter 13)
“Power to examine an
accused is not mere a
formality but a mandate to
enable him to explain any
circumstance appearing
against him in evidence”

57. 1) Entire incriminating evidence
should be put to accused
including case property
(Munir Ahmad @ Munni V. The
State 2001 SCMR 56)
2) If there is any report of chemical
examiner that should also be
put to him.

58. 3) Question about defence evidence and
under section 340(2)
(Mahboob Ahmad V. The State 1996 MLD
180, Abdul Sattar & others V. The State
2002 PCRLJ 51)
4) Certificate as required by Section 364.

59. CERTIFICATE AS REQUIRED BY
SECTION 364 CR.PC
It is certified that statement of
accused has been recorded in
his presence and it contains
full and true account made by
accused.
Sessions Judge,
Faisalabad

60. CONVICTION
1) The act of a legal tribunal
adjudging a person guilty of a
criminal offence.
2) The result of criminal trial
which ends in a judgment that
the accused is guilty as
charged.
3) The stage of criminal
proceedings where the issue of
guilt is determined.

61. SENTENCE
1) Judgment of court formally
advising accused of legal
consequences of guilt which
he has confessed or which he
has been convicted.
2) Pronouncement of penalty.
3) Unless the penalty is there it
can not be called a sentence.

62. Trial of Cross-Cases
--- Cross cases-One cross-
case triable by a Magistrate
and other regarding same
occurrence by Sessions
Court. How trial will
proceed?

63. 1980 P Cr. L J 500
Before Rustam S. Sidhwa and Manzoor
Hussain Sial, JJ
RAHIM DAD
versus
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
“Cross cases-One cross-case triable by a
Magistrate and other regarding same occurrence
by Sessions Court--Proposition 4hat cross-case
triable by Magistrate should immediately be sent
to Sessions Court, seized with other case-Not
an absolute rule but a practice desirable in
public interest, to prevent conflicting judg-
ment.--[Practice and procedure-Cross
case].”

64. P L D 1971 Supreme Court 713
Present : Muhammad Yagub Ali, Sajjad
Ahmad and M. R. Khan, JJ
MUHAMMAD SADIQ-Appellant
versus
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Criminal trial-Procedure for trial of counter-cases
arising out of same occurrence-General practice
to try counter-cases side by side till their
conclusion and pronounce judgment in each case
simultaneously-Rule, however, not absolute or
inflexible. There could be departure from such
procedure on facts of particular case-Challan
case under Ss. 302/307/149, P. P. C.

65. whereas counter complaint case filed by
accused under S. 307/149, P. P. C.-Held,
complaint case could competently be
disposed of by Magistrate himself-Magistrate,
being inferior to Court of Sessions, should
normally await decision of that Court in
counter-case and not vice versa-Pronouncing
of' judgment by Sessions Court stayed by High
Court under S. 561-A, Cr. P. C. pending decision
in counter complaint case before Magistrate-Held,
not justified-Order of High Court set aside and
Sessions Court directed to prepare and
pronounce judgment as early as possible-Penal
Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307 & 302.