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 Special Leave to Appeal No, 485 of 1879, decided on 9th March, 1986.
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑5‑1979 passed in Writ Petition No. 1494 of 1979).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 249‑A & 435‑‑Case being of general impression, leave to appeal granted to consider questions whether revision by private complainant was competent in State case, and whether Magistrate in proceeding under S. 249‑A, Cr.P.C., could take into account finding of Sessions Judge in murder case against same accused in so far as Arms Act case was concerned.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 249‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Revision by private complainant in State case‑ Competency‑‑Accused under S. 302, P.P.C. and under Arms Act acquitted by Trial Court in murder case and while appeal against acquittal was pending in Supreme Court, was acquitted in case under Arms Act by Magistrate under S. 249‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑Revision dismissed by Sessions Judge on ground that in State case revision by private complainant was not competent‑‑Constitutional petition also failed‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Questions arising being of general impression and appeal against acquittal in murder case being pending, leave to appeal granted with direction that both cases be heard together.
Sh. Islam‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 9th March, 1986.
This matter is an off‑shoot of a murder case in which ultimately leave to appeal against acquittal (Criminal Petition No. 263 of 1979) having been granted, the appeal is now pending before this Court. There was a separate case under the Arms Act against the respondent in the aforesaid appeal. He was acquitted under 249‑A, Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate on the basis of a finding by the Sessions Judge in the other case. The petitioner (complainant) herein filed a revision before the Sessions Judge. It was dismissed on the ground that the revision in State cases could not be filed by a private complainant. The High Court, however, took the view that the revision was competent and further that the learned Magistrate could not take into account the findings of the Sessions Judge in the murder case in so far as the Arms Act case was concerned. However, as the matter was agitated in writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it was dismissed on the ground that the order under 249‑A, Cr.P.C. could be passed by the trial Court as the prosecution had failed to produce evidence.
The case is one of general impression. We accordingly grant leave to appeal and direct that the appeal arising out of this petition shall be heard with the appeal arising out of Criminal Petition No. 263 of 1979, on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary.
M. I Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer