Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 935 of 1980, decided on 13th February, 1985.

---S.439‑‑Revision (criminal)‑‑Enhancement of sentence‑‑Appeal of accused heard and disposed of with notice to State and conviction and sentence awarded to respondent were maintained‑‑Appellate Court when signed its judgment against respondent, held, same could not be altered or reviewed except in order to correct a clerical error‑‑Judgment, therefore, becomes final.‑‑[Judgment].

Akhtar Shabbir, A.A.‑G. for the State.

Bashir A. Mujahid for the Complainant.

Ch., Muhammad Anwar Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 13th February, 1985.

‑‑ Learned counsel for the respondent in this criminal revision has pointed out to us that the appeal of the respondent had been heard with notice to the State and it was dismissed on November 27, 1982 whereby the conviction as well as sentence awarded to the respondent were maintained. He places reliance on State v. Hadi Bakhsh 1981 S C M R 1008(1016) and submits that when the appeal of l the respondent had been disposed of after notice to the State, then State is not in a position to file criminal revision for enhancement of, the sentence awarded to the respondent. He further points out that; there is a bar under section 369, Cr.P.C. in the sense that when the appellate Court had signed its judgment as against the respondent then it cannot be altered or reviewed except in order to correct a clerical error; also under section 430, Cr.P.C. judgments and orders passed by the appellate Court upon appeal shall be final. Learned Assistant] Advocate‑General is not in a position to controvert the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent. In that view of the matter, this lb criminal revision cannot proceed and it is accordingly dismissed.

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.