1982 PLP 780 (SCMR)
TALIB HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus PEHLWAN KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 780 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Art. 185(3) and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417 & 439-Sessions Court in a murder case accepting application- for with drawal of complaint and acquitting accused-Petitioner asserting to be an eye-witness of occurrence filing revision before High Court but same dismissed as being not maintainable-Contention that Court of Session could not allow withdrawal of complaint once cognizance of offence taken and petitioner not being complainant not debarred by provisions of S. 417(2) or 439(5) from instituting revision, held, raise questions of some importance---Delay condoned and leave to appeal granted -Complaint Appeal against acquittal-Revision (criminal). |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TALIB HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus PEHLWAN KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 780 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 780 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Art. 185(3) and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417 & 439-Sessions Court in a murder case accepting application- for with drawal of complaint and acquitting accused-Petitioner asserting to be an eye-witness of occurrence filing revision before High Court but same dismissed as being not maintainable-Contention that Court of Session could not allow withdrawal of complaint once cognizance of offence taken and petitioner not being complainant not debarred by provisions of S. 417(2) or 439(5) from instituting revision, held, raise questions of some importance---Delay condoned and leave to appeal granted -Complaint Appeal against acquittal-Revision (criminal). bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 780 (SCMR) (TALIB HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus PEHLWAN KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Rashid Aziz Khan, Additional Advocate-General Punjab for Respondent.
- Rana Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Rashid Aziz Khan, Additional Advocate‑General Punjab for Respondent.
- 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Rashid Aziz Khan, Additional Advocate‑General who has appeared at the direction of the Court. Under subsection (2) of section 417, Cr. P. C. a complainant in a case instituted upon a complaint can appeal by special leave if granted by the High Court, from an order of acquittal. Subsection (5) of section 43 lays down that "where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed".
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of Lahore High Court, dated 9-6-1981 passed in Criminal Revision No. 287 of 1981).
Art. 185(3) and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417 & 439-Sessions Court in a murder case accepting application- for with drawal of complaint and acquitting accused-Petitioner asserting to be an eye-witness of occurrence filing revision before High Court but same dismissed as being not maintainable-Contention that Court of Session could not allow withdrawal of complaint once cognizance of offence taken and petitioner not being complainant not debarred by provisions of S. 417(2) or 439(5) from instituting revision, held, raise questions of some importance
Delay condoned and leave to appeal granted -[Complaint Appeal against acquittal-Revision (criminal)].
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.‑‑A case had been instituted upon a direct complaint filed by Mian Khan, under sections 302/149 and 148, P. P. C. against respondents 1 to
18. The case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, where the accused were summoned but charge had not yet been framed. On 12‑2‑1981 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the presence of the defence counsel, accepted an application filed by Mian Khan, the complainant, seeking withdrawal of the complaint and acquitted the respondents. The petitioner, asserting to be an eye‑witness in the case, filed Revision No. 287 of 1981 before the High Court but the same was dismissed on 9‑6‑1981 ‑as not being maintainable. The reason given was that a revision would lie only when there was no provision for filing appeal but that in view of the provision of section 417, Cr. P. C. an appeal could be filed by a "complainant" which term "should be read in fit cases to be appeal". person who would have a right to file petition for special leave to
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. Rashid Aziz Khan, Additional Advocate‑General who has appeared at the direction of the Court. Under subsection (2) of section 417, Cr. P. C. a complainant in a case instituted upon a complaint can appeal by special leave if granted by the High Court, from an order of acquittal. Subsection (5) of section 43 lays down that "where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed".
3. The contention is that‑ (1) there being no provision enabling the Court of Session to allow withdrawal of the complaint once cognisance has been taken, the order of the trial Court dated 12‑2‑1981 was without jurisdiction; and (2) the petitioner was not "complainant" in the case and as such was not debarred by the provisions of section 417(2) or 439(5) for instituting the revision.
4. The questions raised being of some importance, we condone the delay of 8 days in filing the present petition and grant leave to appeal to the petitioner to consider the aforesaid questions. Delay condoned.