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. 63‑M of 1986, decided on 5th April, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 439‑A, 435 & 561‑A‑‑Order of Additional Sessions Judge showing that arguments raised by petitioner before said Court were not dealt with or discussed‑‑ Revisional Court, held, was bound to notice contentions raised before it and to record its reasons in accordance with principle laid down in P L D 1983 S C 73‑‑Revisional Court also not applying its mind to directions given by High Court in an earlier petition‑‑Order of revisional Court appearing to be contumacious‑ Judgment being defective and in violation of directions given by High Court set aside and case remanded for de novo hearing and disposal by Sessions Judge himself.
Abdul Rahmen's case P L D 1983 S C 73 rel.
Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Petitioner.
S.M. Almas Ali for Respondents.
This is a petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. by Abdul Aziz, petitioner, for the setting aside of the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge of Sialkot, dated 1‑10‑1985.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Since this petition is being accepted on a technical ground, the facts of this case need not be given. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, dated 1‑10‑1985 shows that the learned Judge has not dealt with or discussed any of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before him. According to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Abdul Rahman's case P L D 1983 S C 73, a Court of revision should notice contentions raised before it and should also record reasons thereon. Where the contentions are rejected, the Court must record its reasons for rejecting the same. This is necessary not only to show that mind has been applied to the contentions, but to enable a higher Court to appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the decision. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not apply his mind to the directions given by me in my judgment, dated 9‑10‑1984 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous 324/M of 1984. The attitude of the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to be contumacious and in clear violation of the directions given by me. The judgment being defective and in clear violation of the directions given by me, deserves to be set aside.
3. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Sialkot, dated 1‑10‑1985 is set aside and Criminal Revision 74 of 1984 filed by the petitioner before the Sessions at Sialkot is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot for de novo hearing and disposal by himself. He shall not transfer this case to any Additional Sessions Judge, but dispose it of himself, with a proper speaking order.
H.A.K. Petition accepted and case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer