Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 517‑M of 1984, decided on 24th October, 1984.

‑‑Ss. 439‑A, 439(4)(b) & 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 325/ 34‑‑Order for enhancement of sentence passed by Magistrate‑‑Revision against such order dismissed under S. 439‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑Petition under 5.561‑A, Cr.P.C. against order passed in revision, held, not competent.

Malik Allah Yar Khan forPetitioner.

This is a petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. by Ghulam Muhammad complainant against Khizar Hayat and three others for enhancement of their sentences. The precise prayer in this petition is as follows: ‑

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the record of the case may kindly be called for, the same be scrutinised, the petition be accepted and the impugned judgment to the extent of dismissing the revision petition and not enhancing the sentence awarded to the respondents may kindly be set aside, and the sentence awarded to the respondents by the learned lower Court may kindly be enhanced in accordance with law in the interest of justice".

The facts of this case are that Khizar Hayat and three others were convicted by a Magistrate, Shahpur vide order, dated 29‑2‑1984 under section 325/34, P. P. C. Each one of them was sentenced to nine months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default three months' R.I. They were all directed to pay Rs. 400 each as compensation to the injured or in default to suffer three months' R. I. The four convicts went up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who dismissed the same and maintained their convictions and sentences by judgment, dated 8‑5‑1984. Learned Sessions Judge by the same order dismissed the revision of Ghulam Muhammad present petitioner under section 439‑A, Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the sentences. He has, therefore, come up to this Court seeking enhancement of the sentences of the respondents after recalling the order of dismissal of revision by the lower appellate Court.

2. This petition, in my view, is incompetent in view of clause (b) of subsection (4) of section 439., Cr.P.C. which lays down that nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to entertain ANY PROCEEDINGS in revision with respect to an order made by the Sessions Judge under section 439‑A, Cr. P. C. As stated above, the revision of Ghulam Muhammad petitioner was dismissed under section 439‑A, Cr. P. C. and, as such, the present petition is not competent which is accordingly dismissed in limine.

M. Y. H. 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.