2012 P Cr (PLP)
THE STATE — Petitioner Versus AHMED BAKHSH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THE STATE — Petitioner Versus AHMED BAKHSH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 P Cr (PLP) (THE STATE — Petitioner Versus AHMED BAKHSH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gul Muhammad and others v. The State 1999 SCMR 2765 rel. Saleem Ullah Khan Ranazai for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Hur Khan Baloch and Rehmatullah Khan for Respondents.
- 3. In the case in hand, the State through the Advocate-General KPK had filed an appeal under section 417, Cr'P.C. against the judgment dated 20-12-2010 of .the learned Additional Special Judge, Anti-Corruption for Southern Districts Bannu Camp Court D.I. Khan, whereby the accused/respondents were acquitted of the charge brought against them in case F.I.R. No.91 dated 23-4-2009 under section 167, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment D.I. Khan. The appeal was argued before another honourable Bench of this court on 22-6-2011 and it was held that as the impugned judgment was passed on 20-12-2010, while the State appeal was filed on 17-2-2011 and the period prescribed under the law for filing such an appeal is thirty days, therefore, the appeal being barred by twenty-nine days was dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 561-A' & 417
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.157
Recalling of order and restoration of appeal
Appeal against acquittal filed by the State
Inherent powers of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
Scope
Limitation period for filing such appeal was determined in oblivision to the law
Petition under S.561 A, Ct.P.C.
Scope
State (petitioner) had filed appeal against acquittal of the accused persons before the High Court, but same was dismissed on the account that prescribed period for filing such an appeal was thirty (30) days, therefore, appeal in question was barred by twenty-nine (29) days
Article 157 of the Limitation Act, 1908, provided a period of six months for filing State appeal from the date of order of acquittal and not thirty days as held in the impugned order
Where the impugned order was prima facie, pasted either on account of lack of assistance rendered to the court or due to confusion or accidental slip, but for no fault on part of the petitioner, then S.561-A, Cr.P.C., must come to its rescue to secure the ends of justice
Impugned order of the High Court was recalled, appeal against acquittal was restored to its original number and condonation of delay in filing appeal against acquittal was allowed to the petitioner in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case.
S. 561-A
Inherent power of the High Court
Scope
High Court is empowered even to correct its own order or to recall an erroneous order in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
QAISER RASHID KHAN J.
Through this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., the petitioner/State seeks to recall the order dated 22-6-2011 passed by this court, whereby the Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2011 was dismissed being hopelessly barred by time. Likewise, the petitioner has also sought condonation of delay through Criminal Miscellaneous No.332 of 2011 in the filing of restoration application. This order is directed to dispose off both these petitions.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. In the case in hand, the State through the Advocate-General KPK had filed an appeal under section 417, Cr'P.C. against the judgment dated 20-12-2010 of .the learned Additional Special Judge, Anti-Corruption for Southern Districts Bannu Camp Court D.I. Khan, whereby the accused/respondents were acquitted of the charge brought against them in case F.I.R. No.91 dated 23-4-2009 under section 167, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment D.I. Khan. The appeal was argued before another honourable Bench of this court on 22-6-2011 and it was held that as the impugned judgment was passed on 20-12-2010, while the State appeal was filed on 17-2-2011 and the period prescribed under the law for filing such an appeal is thirty days, therefore, the appeal being barred by twenty-nine days was dismissed.
4. With due deference to the said honourable Bench, the impugned order dated 22-6-2011 was passed probably on account of lack of assistance rendered by the counsel for the parties as the same was in oblivion to the law on the subject. Article 157 of the Limitation Act provides for six months period for filing a State appeal from the date of order of acquittal and certainly not thirty days as held in the impugned order.
5. Now when the law on the subject is abundantly clear as far as the period provided for the Provincial Government to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal is concerned, it is about time that this court should invoke its inherent powers to remedy the situation, or for that matter, to undo a wrong and that is what section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is 'all about and indeed caters to such eventualities.
6. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. reads as under:-"Saving of inherent power of High Court:- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code; or to prevent abuse of the, process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".
7. Thus in a situation where the impugned order was prima facie, passed either on account of lack of assistance rendered to the honourable Bench or confusion or accidental slip, but certainly for no fault on the part of the petitioner, then section 561-A, Cr.P.C. must come to its rescue so as to secure the ends of justice. In the case of Gul Muhammad and others v. The State reported in 1999 SCMR 2765, the honourable apex Court has held that in an appropriate case, the High Court is empowered even to correct its own order or to recall an erroneous order in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
8. For the reasons discussed above, Criminal Miscellaneous No.332 of 2011 is allowed, the impugned order of this court dated 22-6-2011 is recalled and the Criminal A. No.13 of 2011 is restored to its original number.
9. As far as Criminal Miscellaneous No.332 of 2011 for condonation of delay in filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.331 of 2011 is concerned, the same is also allowed in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and that too, in a situation where the basic order from which the petitioner is aggrieved was erroneous. The petitioner must not suffer on account of such act of the court and that is how the old adage goes that a judge must wear all the laws on the sleeves of his robes. To err is human, but the error of the court in like manner situation must be rectified by the court itself, to meet the ultimate objective, i.e., secure the ends of justice. MWA/227/P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.