2007 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus INAYAT and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus INAYAT and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus INAYAT and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazeer Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-F(iv) & 337-F(vi)
Petition for enhancement of sentence
Revision petition filed by the complainant before the Sessions Court for enhancement of sentence of accused had already been dismissed
Present petition filed by. the complainant for enhancement of sentence was not maintainable--.High Court in exercise of its powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. was not competent to enhance the sentence
Inherent powers were not supposed to be exercised to override the express provisions of law, nor the same could be invoked in the presence of express provisions dealing with a particular subject
Said powers also could not be used to defeat the express intention of the Legislature
Petition was dismissed accordingly.
S. 561-A
Scope
High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., no doubt, has the power to modify the sentence of accused, but it has no power to enhance his sentence.
S. 561-A
Inherent jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Inherent powers of High Court are not supposed to be exercised to override express provisions of law.
S. 561-A
Inherent jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in the presence of express provisions dealing with a particular subject, nor the same can be used to defeat the express intention of the Legislature.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
This criminal miscellaneous is directed against the judgment, dated 31-3-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, whereby he accepted the revision petition of respondent/complainant and enhanced the amount of Darman of Rs.5,000 to Rs.15,000 and maintained conviction under section 337-F(iv) and r(vi), P.P.C. and sentenced the petitioner for 1-1/2 years R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also granted to them.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence awarded to the respondents is not sufficient, therefore, in the interest of justice maximum punishment as provided under the law may be awarded to the respondents as the petitioner was attacked by them when he was alone and was injured in a merciless manner.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has seriously opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioners filed the revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for enhancement of the sentence, which was dismissed. This is second criminal miscellaneous filed 'miner section 56i-A, Cr.P.C. which is not maintainable. High Court no doubt has to inherent power to modify the sentence awarded to accused in exercise of its powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. but it has no power to enhance the sentence, This Court cannot enhance the sentence in view of law laid down in cases reported as Haji Sabir and 9 others v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 754.
6. The inherent powers are not supposed to be exercised to override express provisions of law. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to and added where there are express provision dealing with a particular subject or can be used to defeat the express provisions of Legislature. Reference is made to Ashiq Hussain Thahim v. The State and 2 others 1999 MLD
535. In view of the above, this petition having no merit is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-120/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.