Find a Lawyer

‑‑ S. 439‑Revision (criminal)‑Revision pending in High Court, continuation of judicial proceedings‑Suo motu notice in revision to show cause why sentence should not be enhanced a part of judicial process‑Respondent, held, had to respond to process of High Court.

‑‑ Ss. 90, 439 & 561‑A‑‑Report on notice showing that respondent had gone somewhere ‑ Non‑bailable warrants against respondent . without limit of time issued and matter kept on dormant file so that whenever respondent is available revision could be taken up for hearing‑inherent powers of High Court under S. 561‑A stated.

High Court has got inherent powers under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. which provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

S. Murtaza Hussain : Amicus curiae.

Ashraf Khan Tanoli for the State.

Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1984.

Chapter 6 of Criminal Procedure Code relates to process to compel appearance in the Court. This chapter provides for issue of summons and warrants. These summons and warrants can be issued to any person which would include accused persons as well as witnesses. If purpose cannot be achieved with issue of summons and if attempt is resisted then bailable warrants or non‑bailable warrants can also be issued depending on the circumstances. Sections 70 and 71, Cr. P. C. prescribe mode of service process of summons. Section 90, Cr. P. C. contemplates issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to summons.

In the instant case suo motu revision has been registered which was taken cognizance of under section 439, Cr. P. C. Notice has been issued to respondent namely Abdul Wahid to show cause as to why his sentence should not be enhanced. Revision is pending in the High Court which is continuation of judicial proceedings. Notice in the circumstances is part of judicial process which has been issued to the respondent to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. Respondent is bound to respond to the process of the High Court and if he fails to attend or disobeys, then in order to procure his attendance there is no impediment in the way to issue even coercive process of bailable warrants or non. bailable warrants. Attempt was made to serve notice on the respondent in this case and the report is that he had gone to Jehaad in Afghanistan and is not likely to return. In the peculiar circumstances of this case the best course will be to issue non‑bailable warrants against the respondent without limit of time and further the matter may be kept on dormant file so that whenever respondent is available the revision can be taken up for hearing. In any case High Court has got inherent powers under section 56,1‑A, Cr. P. C. which provides that nothing in this B Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The order passed above is, therefore, requisite legal cover. The Court appreciates valuable assistance rendered by Mr. S. Murtaza Hussain as well as Mr. Ashraf Tanoli, Advocates.

M. A. K. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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