2004 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Appellant Versus ADALAT KHAN and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, C.J. and Chaudhary Muhammad Taj, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Appellant Versus ADALAT KHAN and 3 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, C.J. and Chaudhary Muhammad Taj, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Appellant Versus ADALAT KHAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Majid Mallick, Advocate for Appellant.
- Raja Bashir Ahmed, Advocate and Sardar Abdul Razzik Khan, Additional Advocate-General for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Revision (Criminal)
Dismissal of criminal appeal or revision for non-prosecution
Criminal appeal or revision could not be dismissed for non-prosecution, but same was to be disposed of on merits.
Judgment & Decree
CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 12-3-2002, whereby the revision petition filed against the order of District Criminal Court, Kotli for cancellation of bail was dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that a case registered against the respondents and other accused persons (not before the Court) under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 337, A.P.C. read with section 13 of Arms Act, 1965, was challaned before the District Criminal Court, Kotli. The respondents applied for their bail which was allowed through the order passed on 21-11-2001. The appellant herein filed a revision petition challenging the aforesaid order before the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir which was dismissed for non-prosecution by the learned Chief Justice vide the impugned order.
3. Mr. Abdul Majid Mallick, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the criminal revision petition pending before the Shariat Court could not be dismissed for non-prosecution but it was required that the same should have been decided on merits. The learned counsel also argued that the appellant had a very strong case on merits as such the order passed by the Court below was illegal as such was not maintainable.
4. The learned counsel appearing from the opposite side, Raja Bashir Ahmed Khan, when confronted with the aforesaid proposition he did not oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant except contending that the respondents were entitled to the grant of bail which was correctly allowed in their favour by the District Criminal Court, Kotli. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the order impugned herein. It is a settled proposition of law that a criminal appeal or revision cannot be dismissed for non prosecution but the same is to be disposed of on merits. Since both the learned counsel agree to the aforesaid proposition, therefore, detailed discussion is not required as such the order passed by the Shariat Court is not maintainable which is set aside by accepting the appeal. The revision petition filed by the appellant before the Shariat Court shall stand restored and be decided in accordance with law. H.B.T./30/SC(AJ&K) Appeal accepted.