P (PLP)

This judgment primarily cites: (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439‑Order of acquittal by Magistrate passed after permitting compromise of case instituted on police‑report under section 420 Indian Penal Code ---Acquittal can be set aside in revision and retrial ordered even in absence of appeal by Local Government., (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345 (21‑Case under section 420 Indian Penal Code instituted on police‑report‑Court granting permission to compound over the head of the Crown‑Permis sion, held not judicial exercise of discretion., Baluchistan, Quetta., It is true that according to section 345 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code can be compounded by the person cheated with the Court's permission, but it is a well established principle of law that Courts should exercise their discretion judiciously and it must be recognised that it could never be the intention of the legislature that the person cheated could compound an offence of this kind over the head of the Crown. He may do so when he himself is the complainant and is prosecuting the case, but when once the Crown has undertaken criminal proceedings against an accused person, even on the report of the person cheated, it must be for the Crown alone either to prosecute or to withdraw. [p. 19‑20]:, The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code is very wide and unfettered and permits this Court to test the correctness, legality, or even the propriety of any finding, sentence or order, I am acting in this case on my own initiative and it is clear that I am legally permitted to do so under the provisions of section 439, Criminal Procedure Code which allows this Court to sat aside an acquittal and order a re‑trial even in the absence of an appeal by the Provincial Government against an order of acquittal. [p. 20]., A. I. R. 1944 All. 137 relied on., A. I. R. 1945 Nag. 104 referred to., (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 190‑Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence when he applies his mind to the suspected commission of the offence., (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 6‑Absence of sanction an irregularity not curable under section 537 Criminal Procedure Code. as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

The case was heard and decided by the It is true that according to section 345 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code can be compounded by the person cheated with the Court's permission, but it is a well established principle of law that Courts should exercise their discretion judiciously and it must be recognised that it could never be the intention of the legislature that the person cheated could compound an offence of this kind over the head of the Crown. He may do so when he himself is the complainant and is prosecuting the case, but when once the Crown has undertaken criminal proceedings against an accused person, even on the report of the person cheated, it must be for the Crown alone either to prosecute or to withdraw. p. 19‑20: bench comprising: Saker J. C..

Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (GHULAM RASUL‑Accused‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Complainant‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.