2001 PLP 603 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 603 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 603 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 603 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 603 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and another — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- "Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the abovementioned judgment of acquittal, the undersigned advocate most humbly and respectfully files the present Revision Application with a prayer that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of the Sessions Case No.312 of 1999, re: State v. Muhammad Ishaq Chandio under section 9(2), N.S.O. 1995 Ordinance, from the court of learned Special Judge Narcotics, Dadu and after perusing the same and hearing the parties, be further pleased to allow the present, Revision Application, by setting aside the impugned judgment."
- I have heard Mr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi learned counsel for the applicants/accused and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio learned Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the State. The latter concedes to the prayer of the applicants/accused.
- The plain reading of the above provisions shows that the revision against the acquittal is not maintainable. No appeal has been filed against the acquittal as contemplated under section 417, Cr.P.C. Moreover, only public prosecutor defined under section 4(t), Cr.P.C. is competent to file the appeal. The applicants are not public prosecutors. Mr. Fazal Muhammad Khokhar Advocate has been appointed by the Federal Government to conduct the prosecution and appeal. In this context notification issued by the Federal Government is reproduced herein below in extenso:--
- Mr. Fazal Muhammad Khokhar, Advocate, E-188/89, Naun Goth, Sukkur has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the Anti- Narcotics Force cases/proceedings before the Special Courts of Sukkur and Larkana Division and Appellate Courts on behalf of Anti-Narcotics Force/Federal Government under section 50(1) of the CNS Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) vide Notification No. 15 (1178)ANF/LAW/98, dated 25th November, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9(b)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.439 & 561-A-- Revision petition against acquittal of accused and for quashing of F.I.R. registered against the applicants
No appeal having been filed against the acquittal of accused as contemplated under S. 417, Cr.P.C., revision petition was not maintainable
Applicants being not the Public prosecutors, were not even competent to file the appeal against acquittal
Acquitted accused had not been impleaddd as respondent in the revision petition
Contention for quashing of F.I.R. registered against the applicants was misconceived
Case was under investigation and not pending before any Court
High Court, therefore, neither in its revisional jurisdiction nor in its inherent jurisdiction was competent to quash the F.I.R.
Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(b) ................. (5) When under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (6) " The plain reading of the above provisions shows that the revision against the acquittal is not maintainable. No appeal has been filed against the acquittal as contemplated under section 417, Cr.P.C. Moreover, only public prosecutor defined under section 4(t), Cr.P.C. is competent to file the appeal. The applicants are not public prosecutors. Mr. Fazal Muhammad Khokhar Advocate has been appointed by the Federal Government to conduct the prosecution and appeal. In this context notification issued by the Federal Government is reproduced herein below in extenso:-- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN NARCOTICS CONTROL DIVISION ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE POLICE STATION No.4(35)ANF/PS/SUK/98:597, Sukkur, 24th December, 1998. OFFICE ORDER Mr. Fazal Muhammad Khokhar, Advocate, E-188/89, Naun Goth, Sukkur has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the Anti- Narcotics Force cases/proceedings before the Special Courts of Sukkur and Larkana Division and Appellate Courts on behalf of Anti-Narcotics Force/Federal Government under section 50(1) of the CNS Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) vide Notification No. 15 (1178)ANF/LAW/98, dated 25th November, 1998. (QAMAR SADDIQUE RAJA), ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. Distribution. (1) The Assistant Registrar, High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur for kind information. (2). The Assistant Registrar, High Court of Sindh Bench at Larkana for kind information. (3) Special Court/Sessions Judge, Sukkur, Khairpur Nawabshah, Naushahro Feroze, Ghotki, Shikarpur, Jacobabad and Larkana for kind information. (Qamar Saddique Raja), Assistant Director. The applicants have also failed to nominate the accused Muhammad Ishaque Chandio as respondent in the present application. The contention of the learned counsel for the, applicants that the F.I.R. registered against the applicants may be quashed is misconceived. The case is under investigation and not pending before any Court. The High Court, under its inherent powers, may quash the judicial proceedings, if, it was of the view that the proceedings pending in the Court amount to an abuse of the process of Court. In the case in hand no proceedings are pending in the Court. Consequently the High Court in its revisional or inherent jurisdiction is not competent to quash the F. I. R. In this context I am fortified by the decision of apex Court in. the case of Ahmed Saeed v. The State and another reported in 1996 SCMR
186. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present revision is not maintainable in law. Resultantly it merits no consideration and stands dismissed alongwith listed application. N.H.Q./M-126/K Petition dismissed.