Find a Lawyer

HASSAN versus THE STATE

____Section 31, 439 (3), 439 A & 561 AT Extending the Trial Jurisdiction to Increase Imprisonment and Punishment by Revision Court - Charges Under Trial Court, Section 7, PP, PPC Sentencing, punish him. Sentenced to 3 years in prison along with payment of compensation, but the revision court extended the sentence to 10 years in prison and also increased the compensation awarded by the trial court - the question before the High Court was whether to revise In the jurisdiction, tn conviction may be granted more than the competence of the trial court Section Under Section 439A, CRPC, the Sessions Judge, using the amended jurisdiction, shall exercise the same powers and jurisdiction as Section 439. , CRPC and Section 439, provided that the CRPC maintains that, under the amended jurisdiction, the trial No more punishment can be awarded than the merits of the court - the Assistant Sessions Judge was a Judicial Officer, exempt for all purposes, rcised powers granted to the Magistrate of Section 30, which meant that the latter was rightly so. The Assistant Sessions Judge can be said to have been unable to serve the rial trial court / magistrate section 30 conviction for 7 years imprisonment. Accordingly, as provided under Section 9439 (Cr) CCPC, the amending court was unable to extend the sentence by the amending court to exclude the trial from 10 years. , So illegal action was initiated and it was misused. The court, which can be considered under the inherent powers of Section 1 561A, CCPC in the High Court, has imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

PLD 2017 Lahore 106

Before Muhammad Tariq Abbasi, J

HASSAN—Petitioner

versus

THE STATE and another—Respondents

Criminal Miscellaneous N0.I888-M of 2015, decided on 16th February. 2016.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

____Ss. 31, 439(3), 439-A & 561-A—Enhancement of sentence of imprisonment and compensation by revisional court beyond sentencing powers of Trial Court—-Scope—Trial court, convicting the accused of the Charge under S. 377, P.P.C, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 3 years along with payment of compensation, but the revisional court enhanced the sentence of imprisonment to 10 years an also enhanced the compensation awarded by the Trial Court—Question before the High Court was whether under revisional jurisdiction, tn sentence exceeding to the competency of Trial Court could awarded—Under S. 439-A, Cr.P.C, Sessions Judge, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, would exercise the same powers and jurisdiction as provided under S. 439, Cr.P.C—Section 439, Cr.P.C provided that under revisional jurisdiction, a sentence greater than the competency of Trial Court could not be awarded—Assistant Sessions Judge was a judicial officer, who for all purposes, exercised powers which were vested in Magistrate of Section 30, which meant that the latter could rightly be termed as an Assistant Sessions Judge—Trial Court/Magistrate Section-30 was not competent to impose sentence to an accused beyond 7 years imprisonment; accordingly, as provided under S. 439 (3), Cr.P.C, the revisional court was not competent to enhance the sentence beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court-Enhancement of sentence to 10 years by the revisional court was therefore illegal ab initio and abuse of process of the court, which could be looked into under inherent powers of S. 561-A, Cr.P.C—High Court, setting aside the impugned order of the revisional court as to enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment, maintained the same regarding enhancement of compensation—Application under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C was partially allowed accordingly, [pp. 110,. Ill] A, B, C & D

Mst. Sarwar Jan v. Ayub and another 1995 SCMR 1679 rel. .

Shahid Nazir Jarra for Petitioner.

Dr. Muhammad Anwar Khan Gondal, Addl. Prosecutor-General for the State.

Javed Imran Ranjha for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 16th February, 2016.

criminal advocate from Risalpur lawyer