Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 418 of 1985, heard on 26th May, 1985.

-‑‑S. 249‑A‑‑Section 249‑A, Cr. P. C., held, was still on statute book notwithstanding fact that ordinance by which said section was inserted had been repealed.

‑‑‑S. 6‑A ‑‑Continuance of amendment is not broken by repeal of amending Ordinance unless it is so specifically stated‑‑Object of a repealing and amending Act is only to strike out unnecessary Acts and excise dead matter from statute book in order to lighten burden of ever increasing spate of legislation and to remove confusion from public mind.

Azam Ali and others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and another P L D 1968 Lah. 148 ref.

‑‑‑Ss. 561‑A & 249‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 182‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Case under S. 182, P.P.C. pending in trial Court‑‑Remedy under S. 249‑A, Cr. P. C. before resorting to S. 561‑A, Cr. P. C., held, to be exhausted before invoking inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S. 561‑A, Cr. P. C.

Nasir Ali v. Mehran Khan P L D 1981 S C 607 and Mian Munir Ahmad v. The State 1985 S C M R 257 ref.

A. Rashid for Applicant.

Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 26th May, 1985.

This is an application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashment of proceedings in a criminal case under section 182 P.P.C. pending in the Court of A.C.M. VIth East, Karachi. Confronted with the question as to why remedy available ‑under section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. in the trial Court has not been exhausted before invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., learned counsel for the applicant submitted that section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. has been repealed and is no more available. It was further submitted that section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. was introduced by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 36 of 1977 which has been subsequently included in the firs: schedule to the Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance, 1981 specifying all those laws which have been repealed. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is untenable and factually incorrect for the reason that section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. is still on the statute book notwithstanding the fact that the Ordinance by which it was inserted, has been repealed. There is no dispute about the fact that section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. has been introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred as Ordinance 36 of 1977) which stands repealed by Federal Laws Revision and Declaration) Ordinance, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred as Ordinance 27 of 1981) but that does not mean that section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. also has been repealed. Perusal of preamble of Ordinance 27 of 1981 clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was to repeal specifically those laws, which has become spent or otherwise unnecessary or ceased to be in force otherwise than by express or specific repeal. Section 7 of the said Ordinance further specifically saves amendments brought in the text of any law (including the constitution and any Martial Law Regulation). Now Criminal Procedure Code was already there as existing law and section 249‑A; Cr. P. C. was added to it by Ordinance 36 of 1977 and after the purpose was carried out the said Ordinance had become superfluous and was subsequently repealed by Ordinance 27 of 1981 leaving behind section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. in the Criminal Procedure Code as a permanent feature. Section 6‑A of General Clauses Act, 1897 gives protection to textual amendments in the Act or in the Regulation in spite of the fact that those Acts bringing in amendments have been repealed unless a different intention appeared. This clearly shows that continuance of the amendment is not broken by the repeal of the amending Ordinance unless it is so specifically stated. The main object of a repealing and amending Act is only to strike out the unnecessary Acts and excise dead matter from the Statute Book in order to lighten the 8 burden of ever‑increasing spate of legislation and to remove confusion from the public mind. In support of the proposition stated above, reliance can be placed on the case of Azam Ali and others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and another P L D 1968 Lah. 148 in which it is held that continuity of section 3-A of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act XII of 1957 inserted by amendment Act XLV of 1958 on the same subject‑matter is not broken by repeal of the said amendment Act. It is, therefore, very clear now that repeal of Ordinance 36 of 1977 by Ordinance 27 of 1981 does not affect continuity of section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. which is amendment in the text of Criminal Procedure Code, which shall remain on the Statute Book unless expressly repealed. This being so it was necessary for the applicant to have applied before the trial Court for remedy available under section 249‑A, Cr. P. C. before resorting to section 561‑A , Cr. P. C . Reference can be made to D the cases of Nasir Ali v. Mehran Khan‑reported in P L D 1981 S C 607 and of Mian Munir Ahmad v. The State 1985 S C M R 257. Application for quashment of proceedings under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. is, therefore dismissed.

M. B. A. Appeal 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.