Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 41-R of 1980, decided on 15th March, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22-6-1980, passed in Cr. Revision No. 782 of 1979).

-- Heading of complaint, misdescription in-Contention that heading of complaint instead of mentioning Court as that of Sessions Judge should have mentioned Court of Magistrate-Held, of no avail-Court seized of matter could even at such stage ask complainant to add in complaint description of Court where complaint actually presented [Complaint].

-- Ss. 423 & 439-Remand (criminal)-Criminal trial-Observations in High Court judgment remanding case to lower Court-Held, made in context of arguments raised in High Court, tentative, and subject to evidence before and decision by trial Court, and not calculated to prejudice petitioner's defence plea.

Kh. Ahmad Iqbal, Advocate and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent No. 1

Date of hearing : 15th March, 1981.

Leave to appeal has been sought from order, dated 22-6-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a criminal revision petition arising out of the dismissal of a complaint in a murder case, was allowed, and the learned trial Judge was directed to, proceed with the complaint from the stage it was dismissed.

Learned counsel has contended that there was considerable delay in the filing of the complaint that although it is mentioned in the impugned order that there were two versions of the case, in reality, it was not so that the complaint was directly lodged in the Court of Sessions in contravention of amended section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code and lastly that the complaint was formally addressed to the Sessions Court though it should have been addressed to the Court of the Magistrate.

The first two contentions raised by the learned counsel relate to the merits. It is stated that the learned trial Judge had fixed the case for hearing but it had to be adjourned on account of the pendency of the present petition. After some discussion, learned counsel did not press the arguments raised on merits so as to avoid any finding which might prejudice one or the other party.

With regard to the remaining two arguments, learned counsel stated that after going through the order sheet which was not earlier shown to him, he has discovered that the complaint was in fact lodged in the first instance before the Magistrate. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the learned Sessions Court took its cognizance directly in contravention of section 1.93, Cr. P. C. Notwithstanding this factual position, learned counsel pressed the last argument, namely, that the heading of the complaint instead of mentioning the Court as that of Sessions Judge should have mentioned the Court of Magistrate.

We have not been impressed by the sole argument ultimately pressed by the learned counsel with regard to what the heading of the complain should have contained. Even now the Court seized of the matter can ask the complainant to add in the complaint the description of the Court in which it was actually presented. Learned counsel for the Caveator is present states that he would do the needful in this behalf.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed the apprehension that some of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the High Court might prejudice the petitioners defence plea. The apprehension is unfounded. Obviously, the observations were made in the context of the arguments raised in the High Court. They would remain tentative and subject to the evidence before and decision by the trial Court. With these observations, we find force in this petition and the same is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.