Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 107 of 1982, decided on 3rd November, 1982.

‑‑Ss. 3, 16 & 21 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A‑‑Quashment of criminal proceedings‑Special enactment excluding provision of a procedural law in totality or partiality by express provision or necessary intendment‑Provision thus excluded cannot be resorted to for judging validity of act done under special enactment‑High Court having been vested with limited revisional powers under S. 16 in respect of orders passed under Ss. 4. 12 & 15 only and section 21 disallowing questioning of proceedings under Act otherwise than as provided in Act. provisions of S. 561‑A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, held, not applicable to proceedings under Act hence cannot be invoked by an aggrieved person.‑ [Quashment of proceedings‑Interpretation of statutes).

Raja Mumtaz Hussain Rathore for Applicant.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 3rd November, 1982.

This is an application seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated against the applicant, under section 13 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Control of Goondas Act of 1956.

I have heard the preliminary arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant Raja Mumtaz Hussain Rathore. He has argued that the applicant was a worker of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Party and he is victimised for political reasons as well due to enmity between the parties. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the allegation of mala fide of the non‑petitioners is correct or not, the question arises as to whether this Court can quash the proceedings in exercise of powers vested in it under section 561‑A of the Cr. P. C. The. Control of Goondas Act is special enactment and special procedure has b‑n provided in the said enactment. Under section 3 of the said Act only some of the provisions of the Cr. P. C. pertaining to issuance of summons and warrants etc., have been made applicable, to the proceeding under the said Act. It is well‑settled principle of law that if a special enactment excludes the provision of a procedural law in totality or partially, by express provision or necessary implications, such provisions cannot be resorted to for judging the legality of an act done under the special A enactment. This Court has been vested with limited revisional powers under section 16 of the said Act i.e. if the order is passed under sections 4, 12 and 15 of the said Act. Section 21 of the aforesaid enactment lays down that no proceedings taken or passed under the Act shall be questioned otherwise than as provided in the Act. It means that provisions of section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and as such, cannot be invoked by an aggrieved person. The upshot of the above discussion is that the application being misconceived, is hereby dismissed in limine.

Application 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.