Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 239 of 1974, heard on 13th May 1975.
‑‑‑S. 439‑-Revision‑Court acquitting accused on accepting compromise of parties in offences under Ss. 307/148/149, P. P. C. ---Offences being not compoundable order, held, patently against law‑Acceptance of compensation, held, does not curs illegality --Disposal of appeal on merits ordered in circumstance‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307/148/149.‑[Revision (criminal)].
Sh. Muhammad Usman for Petitioner.
Naveed Shahryar for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
Iqbal Ahmad Malik for the State.
Date of hearing: 13th May 1975.
This revision has been filed in the following circumstance. Respondents 2 to 6 were convicted by Magistrate Section 30, Kharian, District Gujrat under section 307 read with section 149 and section 148, P. P. C. Talib co‑accused was acquitted. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Court of Session. During the pendency of that appeal, the parties compounded the matter between themselves and Nizam Din, respondent paid Rs. 500 as compensation to Ghulam Nabi and also tendered apology. After recording the statements of the parties, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the matter to be compromised and accepted the appeal by his order dated 11‑2‑1974. A revision filed before the learned sessions Judge by Zaman, complainant in the case, for enhancement of the sentence was also simultaneously rejected by the same judgment.
2. Ghulam Nabi has called in question that judgment by filing this revision on the ground that the offences not being compoundable the appeal should not have been accepted on the basis of a compromise. The impugned judgment is patently against the law. The offences not being compoundable, the parties should not have been permitted to compound it. The conduct of the petitioner in having accepted the compensation money does not cure the illegality of the judgment. I, therefore, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction set aside the impugned judgment and direct that the appeal of the respondents and the revision application filed by Zaman complainant, be disposed of on merits by the Sessions Court.
Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer