Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 16 of 1985, decided on 5th August 1985.

‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S. 304‑A‑‑Revision‑‑High Court not bound to hear all parties in criminal revision but notice to parties is necessary.

Tariq alias Tahira v. Haji Allah Ditta and another P L D 1983 S C 497 ref.

‑‑‑Ss. 369, 439 a 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S.304‑A‑‑Review petition‑‑Filed on ground that when revision petition of accused dismissed he was not given an opportunity of being heard‑‑Revision filed by accused heard by High Court with assistance of State counsel, as counsel for accused did not appear, and dismissed on merits‑‑Two concurrent findings of Courts below existing against accused‑‑Provisions of S. 369, Criminal Procedure Code, precluding High Court from reviewing its own order‑‑Review petition dismissed.

Khan Muhammad v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 578 and 1971 SCMR 618 rel:

Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A.‑G. for the State.

Applicant Nazir Masih was convicted under section 304‑A, P.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 18 months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 in default to suffer further R.I. for six months. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge Sukkur. The applicant filed revision application which was also dismissed on 14‑5‑1985. Being aggrieved with the order passed in revision by this Court he has filed this application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. praying that judgment may be reviewed on the ground that the applicant was not given an opportunity of being heard as provided under section 439(2), Cr.P.C. The applicant is present and brought an application from his Advocate for adjournment. He was given' time to bring the counsel. He appeared at 12‑30 and stated that his Advocate is busy with his personal work.

I have heard Mr. Syed Zawar Hussain Jafferi learned A.A.‑G. Revision application was dismissed on merits by this Court and there are two concurrent findings of the Courts below. I have perused cause list of 9‑5‑1985 when the revision application was fixed for regular hearing. Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Durrani was appearing on behalf of the applicant who is from Sukkur and his name appears in the list at serial No. 6 of regular hearing but he did not appear nor he sent an application for adjournment. Therefore, revision was heard with the assistance of the State counsel and was dismissed on merits. I refer to case of Tariq alias Tahira v. Hap Allahditta and another P L D 1983 FSC 497 where it has been held that Court is not bound to hear ell the parties in criminal revision but notice to the parties is necessary. In case of Khan Muhammad v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 578 it was held that in view of case reported in 1971 S C hi R 616 the provisions of section 369, Cr.P.C. preclude the High Court from reviewing its own order. In these circumstances this application for reviewing the order already passed on merits is not competent and without merit. The application is dismissed.

Applicant Nazir Masih was granted bail by this Court on 22‑3‑1985. He is present in Court. He may be taken into custody and directed to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court.

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.