1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G.N. Gohar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 439‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/148/149‑‑Limitation‑‑Contention that since revision was filed after one year, one month and 18 days of the order of acquittal, same should have been dismissed as having been filed with an inordinate delay, was repelled‑‑Held, since no limitation was prescribed for filing of revision, the same, therefore, could not have been dismissed as barred by time‑‑Sessions Judge was quite competent to interfere with the order of Trial Court at any time in exercise of his powers under S.439‑A, Cr.P.C. MA. FaWani for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 439‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/148/149‑‑Limitation‑‑Contention that since revision was filed after one year, one month and 18 days of the order of acquittal, same should have been dismissed as having been filed with an inordinate delay, was repelled‑‑Held, since no limitation was prescribed for filing of revision, the same, therefore, could not have been dismissed as barred by time‑‑Sessions Judge was quite competent to interfere with the order of Trial Court at any time in exercise of his powers under S.439‑A, Cr.P.C. G.N. Gohar for Petitioner. MA. FaWani for the State. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are that a case under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. was registered against Muhammad Nawaz and others, the petitioners at Police Station Ahmadpur East. After investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate who acquitted them on 16‑4‑1987 under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. On this Fazal Ahmad respondent No.2, filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge, who accepted the same on 19‑12‑1988, hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that since revision was filed after one year, one month and 18 days of the order of acquittal, therefore, the same should have been dismissed as having been filed with an inordinate delay. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this application.
3. I have considered the matter. I find that since no limitation is prescribed for the filing of the revision, therefore, the same could not have been dismissed as barred by time. The learned Sessions Judge was quite competent to interfere with the order of the trial Court at any time, m exercise of his powers under section 439‑A, Cr.P.C. For what has been said above, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1348/L Petition dismissed.