2012 PLP 1072 (SCMR)
FARHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus MUTALIB KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1072 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | FARHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus MUTALIB KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1072 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1072 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1072 (SCMR) (FARHAD ALI — Petitioner Versus MUTALIB KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1.
- Zafar Ahmed, Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 2-4-2010 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.42 of 2010).
S. 439(2)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
High Court, as revisional court, while setting aside the order passed by the court below, remanded the case to the Trial Court with direction to decide the same on the material produced by the complainant at the preliminary stage of the complaint
Contention of the accused (petitioner) was that he was one of the nominated accused in the complaint and neither any notice was issued to him before passing of the impugned order nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him
In view of S.439(2), Cr.P.C., it was mandatory for the High Court, as revisional court, to have afforded a proper opportunity to the accused, after due notice to him, which admittedly was not done
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal, impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with the law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.
By this criminal petition for leave to appeal, petitioner Farhad Ali son of Khewa Din has impugned the order of learned Single Judge in Chambers of High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 2-4-2010, in Criminal Revision Application No.42 of 2010, whereby the said criminal revision application was disposed of in the terms that the order dated 22-3-2010, impugned therein, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial Court with directions to decide the same on the material produced by the complainant at the preliminary stage of the complaint.
2. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the legality of the impugned order is with reference to section 439(2), Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-- "No order under this section can be made to the prejudice of the accused unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence." 2(sic) Relying upon the above provision of law, submission of the learned counsel is that although before the revisional Court, the petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.2, as he was one of the nominated accused in the complaint, but what to speak of any opportunity of hearing to him, even no notice was issued to him before passing of impugned order by the revisional Court.
3. Mr. Zafar Ahmad, learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh, after going through the case record, did not controvert such assertion.
4. In view of the clear language of section 439(2), Cr.P.C., as reproduced above, it was mandatory for the revisional Court to have afforded proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, after due notice to him, which the revisional Court admittedly failed to follow.
5. This being the position, for this short reason, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order passed by the revisional Court is set aside and the case is regarded to the High Court of Sindh for fresh disposal of Criminal Revision No.42 of 2010, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. M.W.A./F-5/SC Petition allowed.