' The learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, contended vehemently that the impugned judgment, dated 29-10-1995 recorded by Mr. Hidayatullah Khan, E.A.C., Sheranis/Magistrate 1st Class, empowered under section 30, Cr.P.C., is in violation of the mandatory provisions/ requirement of section 367, Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is not a proper judgment at all. The learned counsel for the appellant was of the view that a judgment should invariably discuss the merits/demerits of the statements of the witnesses, with reference to the charge and that a "proper judgment" must specify the points for determination and the reasoning of the Court for such determinations. The trial Court is, therefore, not only obliged but is under a statutory duty to, thoroughly examine all the evidence adduced by the parties, as well as their arguments, and to appreciate the same according to law. Normally minor omissions and commissions are curable and could be ignored by the Appellate Court but on account of failure to specify the points of determination, absence of reasons for decision about the contentions raised in the matter or a total lack of reasoning, constituted a material defect of judgment which could not be conveniently overlooked. In other words, a judgment which is not lucid, complete, self-contained and unambiguous does not fulfill the requirements of section 367, Cr.P.C. Accordingly the conviction recorded on the basis of such judgment cannot be sustained/upheld. The High Court in the circumstances could set aside the conviction and sentence and send back the case for rewriting of a proper judgment.
2. In this case, the Magistrate 1st Class (empowered under section 30, Cr.P.C.) has adjudicated upon the case in the following terms:-- "All the P.Ws. Examined before this Court during trial and the P.Ws. Already examined by the Court in the abscondence period of the accused fully supported the version of the prosecution case against the accused and there seems no material contradiction in the statements of the P.Ws. In the cross-examinations put on them by the defence. I came to the conclusion that the prosecution case against the accused is fully proved and the accused is guilty of offence under section 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. I therefore, convict and sentence him for a period of five (5) years' R.I.
And with a fine of Rs,5,000 (five thousand) or in default he should be kept behind the bar for a further period of two (2) months' S.I. The accused is benefited under section 382-B, Cr.P.C."
3. When confronted with this situation, the learned counsel for the State frankly conceded and rightly so, that the impugned judgment could not be termed as a "proper judgment" within the meaning of section 367, Cr.P.C.
4. After having gone through the record of the case with some degree of care and going through the provisions of section 367, Cr.P.C. I tend to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Accordingly the present appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment and sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside and the case remanded to the Senior Civil Judge/M.I.C. (empowered under section 30, Cr.P.C.), D.I. Khan with the directions to summon the parties and after hearing them, decide the case by writing a proper judgment, in accordance with law, within a period of two
(2) months.
6. The office is directed to send the record to the Senior Civil Judge immediately.
Criminal Miscellaneous No,20 of 1996 ' With the mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition for the condemnation of delay for six (6) days is accepted in the circumstances of this case.