PCRLJ 2016

2016 P Cr (PLP)

Sheikh MUHAMMAD SABIR — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
2015-November-26
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2016 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members N/A
Parties Sheikh MUHAMMAD SABIR — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 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 2016 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 P Cr (PLP) (Sheikh MUHAMMAD SABIR — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • 6. After hearing the arguments of both sides, I have perused the record. During the Course of the argument the applicant/accused volunteered for decision on special oath to which the complainant conceded and so also the advocates for the parties. The complainant and the applicant/accused along with their respective advocates moved a joint statement wherein both the parties conceded to the payment by the applicant to the complainant in the sum of Rs.22,00,000/- on monthly installments of Rs.100,000/- per month and the complainant conceding to the confirmation of the bail application under the circumstances. The complainant took special oath on Holy Quran which was accepted by the applicant/accused in the presence of the Court. The police file shows that the applicant/accused has joined the investigation. There is nothing mentioned in the police file as to hampering of investigation by the applicant/accused, therefore, the interim bail of the applicant/accused is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The applicant/accused is directed to attend the Court where the challan will be submitted.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 497(5) & 561-A

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489-F & 420

Bail, cancellation of

Condonation as to appearance of accused during pendency of application for cancellation of bail

Inherent powers of High Court

Scope

Pre-arrest bail granted to accused was conditionally confirmed by Court of Session on basis of compromise between the parties, subject to payment of the amount mentioned in the dishonoured cheque in monthly instalments

Accused failed to make payments, on which the complainant filed application for cancellation of bail

Accused, instead of appearing before the court, filed application for condonation of his appearance for an indefinite period on medical grounds, which was dismissed by the court

In the garb of impugned order the accused had challenged the maintainability of the cancellation application

Question of jurisdiction had to be first raised before the Court, which had granted the bail

Grounds which had not been taken by the accused before the trial court, could not be examined by the High Court in exercise of inherent powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. to interfere with the proceedings of the court below, as the same would amount to usurpation of power of the lower court

Accused, in such circumstances, before violating the bail order, should have filed application before the same court for modification of said order or breach of any undertaking by the complainant

Accused was guilty of violating the undertaking given by him before the court below for obtaining order of confirmation of bail

Accused was, thus, playing with the courts by unilaterally claiming that the complainant had not withdrawn the case

Accused without exhausting said remedy had directly invoked the inherent jurisdiction of High Court, to obtain relief which had not been prayed before the Court of first instance

Accused had avoided to explain his position before the court below by abusing the process of the High Court under the cover of present proceedings for about eleven months

High Court, holding that the accused was to be put on notice as to why bail before arrest granted by the court below should not be cancelled on ground of violating the terms thereof, directed the accused, pending cancellation application, to comply with initial order for payment of monthly instalments by depositing the arrears of instalments with the Nazir of the High Court

Application under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. was disposed of accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

NAZAR AKBAR, J.

The applicant through this Cr. Misc. Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has challenged an order dated 23.12.2014 passed by IInd Addl. District Judge Central Karachi on his application for condonation/adjournment in his bail before arrest application No.713/2014 . The order is as follows:- "Issue NBW for the applicant / accused and surety". The applicant was absent and took it for granted that his application shall be granted. The application for condonation to appear in Court were vague. It did not specify on which date he would be absent or he was absent. He wanted a condonation in perpetuity. The application is reproduced below:- It is respectfully prayed on behalf of the applicant/accused above named in the above cited matter that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to condone the absence of the applicant/accused, as he is not fit and allowed by his physician for traveling, walking or outside the house and also advised for complete bed rest for the period, which is mentioned in the medical certificate and furthermore this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exempt the applicant/accused for his personal presence before this Hon'ble Court during the advised period by the said concerned physician and also may kindly be pleased to adjourn the matter till his fitness in the interest of justice. The order does not appear to be an abuse of the process of Court. The applicant was on notice since 27.10.2014 and instead of appearing before the learned Addl. District Judge to contest whatever issue was before the Court, has invoked inherent powers of this Court to avoid appearance before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. By setting aside the impugned order, the maximum benefit to the applicant shall be that his application for condonation of appearance before Additional Sessions Judge would be revived. He has, however, achieved his purpose by filing this Cr.Rev. Application and has not appeared before the Addl. District Judge for the last one year. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and he has not referred to the application on which the impugned order was passed. In the garb of impugned order the applicant has challenged maintainability of an application for cancellation of bail pending before the learned IInd Addl. District Judge Central-Karachi, who has granted the bail. The applicant was given notice on 27.10.2014, he has not filed his reply to the said application. It is settled law that even the question of jurisdiction of a Court has to be first raised before the Court itself. Therefore, the grounds which have not been taken by the applicant before the trial Court, cannot be examined by the High Court in exercise of inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to interfere in the proceedings of the Court below. It would amount to usurpation of power of lower Court. The back ground of the instant Cr. Rev. Application is that the applicant is charged with an offence under sections 489-F/420, P.P.C. and he had obtained pre-arrest bail without furnishing surety equivalent to the amount of the cheque which was bounced. The applicant even at the bail stage agreed to pay the entire amount of cheque which was a sum of Rs.2,200,000/- on monthly installment of Rs.100,000/- per month as is evident from the following paragraph-6 of bail order dated 19.7.2014.

6. After hearing the arguments of both sides, I have perused the record. During the Course of the argument the applicant/accused volunteered for decision on special oath to which the complainant conceded and so also the advocates for the parties. The complainant and the applicant/accused along with their respective advocates moved a joint statement wherein both the parties conceded to the payment by the applicant to the complainant in the sum of Rs.22,00,000/- on monthly installments of Rs.100,000/- per month and the complainant conceding to the confirmation of the bail application under the circumstances. The complainant took special oath on Holy Quran which was accepted by the applicant/accused in the presence of the Court. The police file shows that the applicant/accused has joined the investigation. There is nothing mentioned in the police file as to hampering of investigation by the applicant/accused, therefore, the interim bail of the applicant/accused is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The applicant/accused is directed to attend the Court where the challan will be submitted. Soon after the aforesaid order, the applicant defaulted in fulfilling his commitment and thereby he is guilty of violating the undertaking given by him before the learned A.D.J. for obtaining order of confirmation of bail before arrest. The applicant is playing with the complainant of FIR No.239/2014 as well as with the Court of law by unilaterally claiming that he had stopped payments of installments in spite of the order of Session Judge dated 19.7.2014 as according to him the case has not been withdrawn by the complainant. This was clear violation of the bail orders for an offence in which the accused is charged with forgery and dishonestly issuing cheque of Rs.22,00,000/-. The applicant before violating the bail order should have filed an application before the same Court for modification of the said order or breach of any understanding by the complainant. He became master of his own cause and declared that the bail order is not binding on him and when Court was informed of such violation he refused to attend the Court and after two months send an application for condonation of his appearance for indefinite period. The applicant in the above back ground without exhausting remedy has directly invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, that too, to obtain a relief which has not been even prayed before the Court of first instance. Therefore, in refusing to allow condonation of appearance of applicant for indefinite period on a vague and frivolous application. I do not see any abuse of the power by the learned Addl. District Judge, Central Karachi. The application for condonation was worth reading, therefore, it is reproduced above. However, from the record of the case, it appears that applicant is prima facie guilty of violating bail orders dated 19.7.2014 (annexure A/3) and he has avoided to explain his position before the Court whose order have been violated by him by abusing the process of this Court under the cover of instant proceeding for almost (11) eleven months. Therefore, to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, and to secure the ends of justice. I am obliged to make the following order.

1. In terms of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. read with section 497(5), Cr.P.C. the applicant is put on notice that why bail before arrest granted by the learned A.D.J. on 19.7.2014 should not be cancelled on the ground of violating its terms. I believe with this observation the only technical grievance of applicant that Additional Session Judge was not competent to hear plea of cancellation of bail directly since it was not routed through the Court of Session Judge, Central, Karachi is also redressed.

2. Pending decision on the proposition of cancellation of bail, the applicant is directed to comply with initial order of payment of monthly installment by depositing the arrears of installments before the Nazir of this Court for the period from September, 2014 to November, 2015 amounting to Rs.13,00,000/- within 15 days. SL/M-29/Sindh Order accordingly.