Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 423 of 1986, decided on 23rd April, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 8th March, 1986 in W.P. 1212/86).
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.249‑A‑ Petitioners failing to get relief under 5.249‑A, Cr.P.C. moved High Court in its writ jurisdiction‑‑High Court directed Trial Court to dispose of case at earliest by recording remaining evidence‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that High Court ought not to have given a direction that case be finally decided because that would be hurdle in way of petitioners to seek their acquittal under S.249‑A, Cr.P.C., repelled‑ Section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. by its own force empowers Trial Court, if necessary conditions are present in case, to acquit accused at any stage‑‑There being no impediment in way of Magistrate to entertain a fresh application on part of petitioners under said section and to dispose it of on its own merits‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1986.
The petitioners are: being prosecuted as acc3 sed persons in a police case registered at the instance of the respondent No. 2, under section 406/420, P.P.C. in the Court of Magistrate First Class, Lahore. Before the prosecution evidence was recorded, the petitioners moved the trial Magistrate, under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings and recording an order of acquittal. of the petitioners on the ground that the allegations made against them were groundless. By order, dated 26thJuly, 1984, the learned trial Magistrate, however, rejected the application as premature. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners went up before the Lahore High Court for quashment of proceeding under section 561‑A. Cr. P. C . but a learned Single Judge of that Court finding no substance in that application dismissed the same by his order, dated 29th October, 1984. However, in passing this order the learned Judge made certain observations touching the questions that were likely to arise .for decision at the trial.
2. After the dismissal of their application by the High Court, the case proceeded in the trial Court and six witnesses have been examined. The petitioners, on the basis of the evidence so far as recorded, repeated their request with an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. which was again dismissed by the trial Magistrate by his order, dated 29th September, 1985, taking into consideration the observations made by the High Court while dismissing she application of the petitioners. Against this order the petitioners filed a revision before the Court of Sessions which was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide his order, dated 3rd March, 1986. Having no other remedy under the normal law, petitioners filed a constitutional petition challenging the order passed by the trial Magistrate as well as by the Additional Sessions Judge as being passed without lawful authority in so far as jurisdiction vesting in the said Courts was illegally refused to be exercised. The learned Judge in the High Court took the view that the two applications of the petitioners under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. were rightly dismissed as the prosecutioned not examined its evidence completely. He, therefore, observed that, as the most of the evidence of the prosecution by now had been recorded, the trial Magistrate should dispose of the case at the earliest by recording the remaining evidence. He also further observed that "the trial Magistrate shall not be influenced in any way by the observations given by me in my order, dated 29th October, 1984, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous 191/Q of 1984, as the same were made at the time when there was no evidence on record". With these observations the learned Judge dismissed the constitutional petition in limine by his order, dated 18th March, 1986.
3. In seeking leave to appeal from the order of the High Court, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge in the High Court ought not to have given a direction that the case be finally decided, as that would be hurdle in the way of the petitioners to seek their acquittal under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. We do not agree with this contention, because by its own force section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. empowers the trial Court if the necessary conditions are present in the case to acquit the petitioners at any stage of the case. We find no impediment in the way of the learned Magistrate to entertain a fresh application on the part of the petitioners under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. and dispose it of on its own merits.
4. With these observations this petition is dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer