Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos.90 and 91 of 1986, heard on 16th June, 1986.

‑‑‑S.517‑‑Case property, disposal of‑‑Case decided on merits yet no order regarding disposal of case property passed by Trial Court‑ Application in this behalf dismissed by Trial Court on ground of its having become functus officio and as such lacking jurisdiction to review its own judgment‑‑Order regarding disposal of property, held, was an independent order as contemplated under S.517, Cr.P.C. requiring Trial Court to pass such order on final decision of case‑‑Order of Trial Court set aside, with direction to pass appropriate order according to law regarding disposal of property.

Usman Ghani Rashid for Applicants.

M.I. Memon Addl. A‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 16th June, 1986.

Applicants Muhammad Farooq and Muhammad Rafique were challaned under section 5/23, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The learned Sessions Judge, South Karachi having jurisdiction under the F.E.R. Act tried the case and acquitted the applicants. This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.90 and 91.

It is contended that during the investigation P.L.S. terms deposit receipt No.272272/3 were secured from the applicants but tribunal has not passed any order regarding the property. An application was moved by the applicants but the learned Sessions Judge in his order, dated 19‑12‑1985 stated that he has no jurisdiction to review the judgment.

I have heard Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Additional Advocate‑General for the State. The case has been decided on merits but Property Order has not been passed. The applicants have not asked to review the judgment or touch the merits of the case. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the Court cannot review its own judgment. The order with regard to disposal of the property is an independent order as contemplated under section 517, Cr. P.C. The trial Court has to pass the order independently about the disposal of the property whenever case is decided. In this case no such order has been passed. It has also been pointed out that State has also moved the Tribunal to order that P.L.S. receipts be confiscated and that application‑‑has also, not been decided on merits by the learned Sessions Judge.

For the reasons stated above the order, dated 19‑12‑1985 passed by the tribunal is set aside and he is directed to pass the appropriate order according to law regarding disposal of property.

S. G. D.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.