1999 PLP 3399 (MLD)
AHMAD KHAN and 6 others — Petitioners Versus SESSIONS" JUDGE KHUSHAB AT JAUHARABAD and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3399 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AHMAD KHAN and 6 others — Petitioners Versus SESSIONS" JUDGE KHUSHAB AT JAUHARABAD and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3399 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3399 (MLD)?
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: 1999 PLP 3399 (MLD) (AHMAD KHAN and 6 others — Petitioners Versus SESSIONS" JUDGE KHUSHAB AT JAUHARABAD and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Farooq Chishti for Petitioner.
- Qazi Muhammad Saleem for Respondent No. 4.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 249-A, 417 & 439-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 442/342/144/148/149/ & 338-H (ii)
Revision jurisdiction of Sessions Judge
Sessions Judge accepting appeal against order acquittal passed by Trial Court, set aside the order and remanded case to Tri Court for further proceedings
Order passed by Sessions Judge was challenge contending that Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain appeal complainant against acquittal order passed by Trial Court
Contention was repelled with observation that Sessions Judge was vested with powers und,, S.439, Cr.P.C. to interfere in acquittal order passed by -trial Court
Mere fact that matter before Sessions Judge had been styled as an appeal, would not mal, any difference
Sessions Judge, in circumstances, had competently remanded case to Trial Court in exercise of revisional powers.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 13th March, 1998. Brief facts of the case are; criminal case under sections 440/342, 148/149 and 338-H (ii), P. P. C. was registered against the petitioners at the instance of respondent No. 4 at Police Station Noshera vide F. I. R. data! 20-10-1994. After investigation the challan was presented in Court and trial was held. As many as 7 prosecution witnesses were examined by the trial Court an, 4 were given up, where after only statements of police officials were to I recorded: It was at that stage that the petitioners moved an application before the learned trial Court under section 249-A, Cr. P.C. for their acquittal. The application was accepted by the learned trial Court on 1-4-1997 and till petitioners were acquitted.
2. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before learned Sessions Judge Khushab which was accepted and after setting aside the order, dated 1-4-1997 the case was remanded to the trial Court for further proceedings. Hence this writ petition.
3. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this writ petition, is that no appeal was competent by till Complainant-Respondent No. 4 before learned Sessions Judge. It is submitted that by virtue of amendment of section 417, Cr.P.C. by Act 20 of 1994 subsection (2-A) was added and right of appeal was conferred upon the complainant against the order of acquittal passed by any Court but with the ride that such appeal could only be filed before the High Court, the precise submission is that the learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of respondent No. 4 and decide the same on merits.
4. This is a misconceived writ petition and merits rejection. It is not denied that the learned Sessions Judge is vested with powers under section 439, Cr. P.C. to interfere in the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. The mere fact that the matter before him had been styled as an appeal would not make any difference. In the circumstances of the case, learned Sessions Judge would be deemed to have exercised revisional powers under section 439 of Cr. P.C. and while exercising these powers had competently remanded the case to the trial Court for further proceedings, after setting aside the order of acquittal. No illegality was committed by the learned Sessions Judge, so as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. H.B.T./A-19/I Petition dismissed.