1969 PLP 357 (SCMR)

‑Refusal to quash criminal proceedings‑Not fit subject of appeal to Supreme Court‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A. Dharam Das, Senior Advocate Federal Court (A. A. Zari, Advocate Federal Court with him) instructed by Z. G. Shiekh, Attorney for Appellants. A. S. Faruque, Advocate Federal Court instructed by S. Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing : 12th January 1955. AKRAM, J.‑This appeal arises from an order of the Chief Court of Sind, dismissing under its criminal revisional jurisdiction the appellants appeal for reversing the decision of the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sukkur, refusing to quash certain criminal proceedings pending before himself against the appellants. It appears that in connection with the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 1951, disposed of by the 1st Sub‑Judge at Larkana, as the revising Authority under the Sind Legislative Assembly Electoral Rules, 1936, a number of charges for offences under the Penal Code were framed against the appellants by the special Public Prosecutor and they were put upon their trial before the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption at Sukkur, appointed under the provisions of Act XXIV of 1950; that during the course of the trial objection was raised by counsel for the appellants to the jurisdiction of the Court to hold the trial in the absence of any complaint under section 195 (1) (b) or (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayer was made for the discharge of the petitioners but the Special Judge overruled the objection and refused to grant the prayer (order dated 26‑11‑1953). Appli cation for quashing the proceedings was thereupon made before the Chief Court of Sind. There was a difference of opinion between the Judges of the Division Bench and the matter was accordingly placed before third Judge under section 429, Cr. P. C. The learned Judge took the view that the appellants' application for quashing the proceeding should be rejected and directed an early disposal of the case. It is against this order that the appellants have obtained our leave and filed the present appeal. We are of opinion that the refusal to quash the proceedings cannot be regarded as finally terminating the controversy between the parties to the proceeding. It does not decide the dispute relating to .any legal right or obligation and as such cannot be treated as a fit subject of appeal to this Court. The proceeding still remains pending for the determination .of the questions raised by the contesting parties. No decision precisely in point has been cited to us in support of a contrary view. True, appeals from interlocutory orders have seme times been entertained by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee but those have been in cases of very rare and exceptional circumstances and in matters generally of a civil nature. No such circumstance appears to us to exist in the case in hand and to introduce a new practice in this behalf will not be in our view in the interest of the suitors. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal, reserving to the appellant the right to raise this point if an appeal to this Court becomes subsequently necessary. Appeal dismissed.