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. 46 of 1966, decided on 13th May 1976.
‑‑ S. 253 read with S. 439‑Discharge order‑Complainant refraining from producing his evidence before trial Court while accused attending on every date of hearing‑Discharge order under S. 253. Cr. P. C. passed by trial Court for such wilful non‑appearance of prosecution witnesses upheld by Court of Session‑Retrial in a case discharged 11 years back, held, would unnecessarily burden accused to rigours of useless litigation‑Petition dismissed being without any merits, in circumstances.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan for the State.
Date of hearing 13th May 1976.
This revision petition was tiled by Malik Irshad Khan, under section 439, Cr. P. C. directed against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 17th of April 1965, and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore dated 25th of October 1965. The learned trial Magistrate discharged the accused of the offence under section 448, P. P. C. as despite the fact that the respondent was always present before the Court, the prosecution would not care to produce any evidence. The same view was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge who found no force in the revision petition before him arid dismissed the same.
2. Nobody is present today on behalf of the petitioner although the name of the counsel was listed in the cause list and the case was called several times during the course of the day. Anyhow, as this petition was admitted under the orders of a learned Judge of this Court dated 18th of January 1966, I will dispose of the petition on merits with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged an F. I. R. under section 448, P. P. C. with the police but his attitude was simply callous as well as indifferent by refraining to produce his evidence before the Court while the accused presented himself on every date of hearing. The learned Magistrate confronted with this situation, came to a finding ‑that nobody was interested in the prosecution of this case and discharged the accused under section 253, Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge while dealing with this case was of the opinion that absence of evidence was enough to discharge the accused who could not be pestered for indefinite period.
4. I have taken all these aspects of the case into consideration and have perused the record of this case carefully with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the State has frankly conceded that he would not be able to support the case: of the petitioner on behalf of the State as this will lead to frivolous and endless litigation. He has also supported the judgments of the two Courts below and has submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed as being without any merits.
5. Leaving aside the stand taken by the learned counsel for the State, I myself feel fully convinced that to ask for a retrial in a case which was discharged eleven years back, would be in fact flogging a dead horse, and would unnecessarily burden the accused to the rigours of useless litigation.
6. The result is that I uphold the judgment of the learned trial Court as well as of the appellate Court and dismiss the petition as being without any merits.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer