PLD 1991

P L D 1991 Lahore 268 (PLP)

THE STATE — Appellant Versus NAVID ASIF and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
1991-March-26
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1991 Lahore 268 (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties THE STATE — Appellant Versus NAVID ASIF and others — Respondents
Primary Law (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Lahore 268 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Lahore 268 (PLP)?

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

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

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Lahore 268 (PLP) (THE STATE — Appellant Versus NAVID ASIF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa, Abid Hassan Minto, Sh. Izharul Haq, Muhammad Asif Ranjha, Muhammad Zaheer and Ashraf Sultan Kumma for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 435 & 439

Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S. 6--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420, 468, 471 & 109

Prevention of Corruption Act (fI of 1947), S.5(2)

Suo motu revision

Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption without discussing merits of the case and independent application of mind had recorded the acquittal solely on the basis of the parawise comments submitted by the Director Anti-Corruption

Order of acquittal, held, suffered from inherent legal infirmity

Accused, therefore, were called upon by the High Court to show cause as to why the order of acquittal should not be set aside and the case be remanded for disposal on merits in accordance with law.

Ss. 10(1) & 6

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435 & 439

Suo motu revision by High Court

Appellate and revisional provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 mutatis mutandis have been borrowed including S.439, Cr.P.C. and have been made applicable with full vigour with the inbuilt mechanism of suo mote revisional powers without contemplating any limitations or fetters of any sort.

S. 6

Ipse dixit of the parties in general and that of the prosecution in particular is not binding on the Court and the Special Judge was obliged to decide the matter in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence available on the record. 1p. 276] G

5. 10(4)

Maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius"

Application--Withdrawal of prosecution except under the orders in writing of the appropriate Government was specifically barred under S.10(4)

Theory of implied revocation of sanction of the . prosecution and withdrawal thereof in view of principle of maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" thus was abortive.--[Maxim]. [p. 276] H

S. 494

Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S.10(4)--Withdrawal of prosecution

Even a written application of the Government seeking withdrawal of the prosecution is not to be granted by the Court as a matter of course but shall have to be dealt with on the touchstonce of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mir Hassan v. Tariq Saeed PLD 1977 SC 451. [p. 2761I

Ss. 435, 439, 494 & 249-A

Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), Ss.10(4) & 6

Suo motu revision

Recording of acquittal of accused having been passed in a mechanical fashion without independent application of mind to the facts of the case was declared by High Court to be a nullity in the eye of law and was set aside; resultantly application of accused under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. was ordered to be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court who was to decide the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the evidence having been adduced, after summoning the accused persons and affording them an opportunity of hearing. [p. 277] J

Judgment & Decree

Art. 192

With the constitution of the Court as conceived by Art. 192, all powers of the High Court come to vest and enjoined upon every member of the High Court Bench. [p. 276] F (d) Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958)

S. 6

Ipse dixit of the parties in general and that of the prosecution in particular is not binding on the Court and the Special Judge was obliged to decide the matter in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence available on the record. 1p. 276] G (e) Pakistan Criminal law Amendment Act (XL of 1958)

5. 10(4)

Maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius"

Application--Withdrawal of prosecution except under the orders in writing of the appropriate Government was specifically barred under S.10(4)

Theory of implied revocation of sanction of the . prosecution and withdrawal thereof in view of principle of maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" thus was abortive.--[Maxim]. [p. 276] H (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 494

Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S.10(4)--Withdrawal of prosecution

Even a written application of the Government seeking withdrawal of the prosecution is not to be granted by the Court as a matter of course but shall have to be dealt with on the touchstonce of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mir Hassan v. Tariq Saeed PLD 1977 SC 451. [p. 2761I Mir Hassan v. Tariq Saeed and 2 others PL,D 1977 SC 451 fol. (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Ss. 435, 439, 494 & 249-A

Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), Ss.10(4) & 6

Suo motu revision

Recording of acquittal of accused having been passed in a mechanical fashion without independent application of mind to the facts of the case was declared by High Court to be a nullity in the eye of law and was set aside; resultantly application of accused under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. was ordered to be deemed to be pending before the Trial Court who was to decide the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the evidence having been adduced, after summoning the accused persons and affording them an opportunity of hearing. [p. 277] J Farooq Bedar, Addl. A: G. for the State. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa, Abid Hassan Minto, Sh. Izharul Haq, Muhammad Asif Ranjha, Muhammad Zaheer and Ashraf Sultan Kumma for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th March, 1991.