Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 86 of 1984 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21 of 1982, decided on 15th February, 1984.
‑‑‑S.561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Dismissal of application for non prosecution‑‑Restoration‑‑No provision of law or law laid down by superior courts cited in support of prayer for restoration of a quashment proceedings‑‑Counsel for petitioner had previously too been accommodated on receipt of a telegram‑‑Restoration application, held, misconceived and dismissed.
Muhammad Sadiq v. The Crown A I R 1925 Lah. 355 and Abdul Ghafoor v. Abdul Karim and 2 others P L D 1971 Lah. 616 ref.
Muhammad Naazar Khan for Petitioner.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21/82 was dismissed by me on 25‑1‑1984 for non‑prosecution and now the petitioner has moved for its restoration.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he could not appear on the date of hearing as he was to appear before the Special Judge Banking at Lahore and had sent a telegram to this Court for an adjournment. When questioned about the competency of the instant application for restoration of Cr. Misc. No. 21/82 he conceded that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to the restoration of the miscellaneous criminal applications dismissed for non‑prosecution. He, however, referred me to Muhammad Sadiq v. The Crown A I R 1925 Lah. 355 wherein it is held that an appeal under section 419, Cr.P.C. could not be dismissed without the appellant or his pleader having had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with the provisions of the proviso to section 421(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This authority is obviously of little assistance to him. He next referred to Abdul Ghafoor v. Abdul Karim and 2 others P L D 1971 Lah. 616 wherein a question pertaining to revision petition was involved and it was observed at page 618 that "As far as I am aware, there is no inherent power in the High Court to alter or review its own judgment once it has been pronounced and signed except in cases where it has been passed either without jurisdiction or in default of appearance without adjudication on merits." The learned counselor the petitioner spotlighted the underlined portion of the above observation but I could not persuade myself to agree with his plea for restoration of the application dismissed for non‑prosecution. As a matter of fact he could not cite any provision of law or the law laid down by the superior Courts in support of his plea at all. Moreover, it was his bounden duty to appear in this Court inasmuch as he had previously too been accommodated on receipt of a telegram.
This miscellaneous application being misconceived and without any merit is dismissed in limine.
M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer