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.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.274 of 1986, decided on 20th December, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 249‑A, 439‑A, & 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 308/34‑ Quashing of order‑‑Magistrate acquitting accused, in challan case, under S.249‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑Appeal against acquittal not filed by State‑‑Sessions Judge dismissing revision against acquittal filed by complaint as not maintainable‑‑Complainant, held, was not debarred from filing private revision under S.439‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑Order of Sessions Judge being illegal was set aside in circumstances.
1980 p Cr. L J 191 ref.
Kh. Arshad Mubeen for Petitioner.
C.M. Latif with Najam Iqbal for the State.
Date of hearing: 20th December, 1986.
This is a quashment petition under section 561‑A Cr.P.C. by Liaqat Ali, petitioner/complainant against the order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore dated 12‑5‑1986, dismissing his revision petition. Earlier, a First Class Magistrate of Lahore, by his order dated 2‑1‑1986, had acquitted Nek Muhammad and Karamat Ali, accused/ respondents, under section 249‑A Cr.P.C. on the ground that the prosecution was not producing its witnesses, though more than twenty‑four hearings had taken place in the case.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused /respondents and the State. It appears that on 26‑1‑1986, a First Class Magistrate of Lahore acquitted Nek Muhammad and Karamat Ali, respondents Nos.1 and 2, of charges under section 308/34 P.P.C. on the ground that the prosecution was not producing its witnesses, notwithstanding a number of adjournments granted in that respect, and that the case had also passed through twenty‑four hearings. Accordingly, acting under section 249‑A, Cr. P. C . , the said order was passed. Being aggrieved by the said order, Liaqat Ali. petitioner, who was the complainant in the case, filed a revision petition against the said order in the Sessions, which was heard by a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore who dismissed the same on 12‑5‑1986, on the ground that the same was not maintainable as an appeal lay against the impugned order under section 417(2) Cr.P.C. and no appeal had been so filed. The instant case is a challan case. The State had a right of preferring an appeal against the acquittal of the accused respondents under section 417(2) Cr.P.C. The State, however, did not prefer an appeal. This, therefore, did not debar the petitioner, who was the complainant in the case, from filing a private revision under section 439‑A Cr. P. C . before the learned Sessions Judge. If any authority is required for this view, Muhammad Bakhsh's case 1980 P Cr. L J 191 may be referred. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 12‑10‑1986 is, therefore, illegal and deserves to be set aside.
3. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore dated 12‑5‑1986 is set aside. The revision petition (T. A. No.453 of 1986) filed by Liaqat Ali, petitioner, before the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, for de novo disposal, in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, shall hear the said revision petition himself or mark it for disposal to any other Additional Sessions Judge (other than Malik Mushtaq Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge) in his district for disposal.
S. A. M‑3/1, Order quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer