2003 P Cr (PLP)

Ali Azhar Tunio, A.A.‑G. for the State. This is an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. filed by applicant Abdul Qadir seeking recall of the order, dated 27‑8‑2002 passed by this Court dismissing the revision application as not pressed. The order called in question and prayed to be recalled reads as under:‑‑ "27‑8‑2002. Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, Advocate for‑the Applicant. Mr. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. After hearing this matter at length learned counsel does not press the revision application. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel, this revision application is dismissed as not pressed." The facts in brief relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application are that the applicant had stood surety for accused Akbar in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one hundred thousand) in the Court of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Jacobabad. Since the said accused remained absent, his bail was cancelled and the bail bond was forfeited; the applicant was directed to deposit the surety amount in full. Thereafter the applicant filed a revision before this Court and by an order, dated 29‑6‑2001 the said revision was partly allowed and the surety amount to be recovered from the applicant was reduced to Rs.75,

000. The applicant has stated that he filed an appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court against the said order which was dismissed on 5‑10‑2001. The copy of the said order has not been placed by the appellant on record. It is further contended by him that on 17‑10‑2001 he produced accused Akbar before the learned trial Court and prayed for being excused or further deduction in the amount of the fine. Such application was rejected on 6‑11‑2001 by the learned trial Court, where after the applicant/surety again filed this Revision Application No.4 of 2001 (Karachi) re‑numbered as 29 of 2002 (Larkana) which was finally disposed of by this Court on 27‑8‑2002 and, the order as referred to above was passed. The contention of the applicant is that he had never authorised Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, Advocate not to press the revision application and the learned counsel has exceeded his powers. It is well‑settled that an Advocate who is a recognized agent of a party has right to perform his duties as an agent and there is nothing on record to show that he was forbidden by the applicant to make any such statement. Even otherwise order passed by this Court shows that such statement was not given at the very out set, but the learned Advocate had argued the matter at length and thereafter perhaps being confronted with the legal implication in the matter, he made such statement. No occasion has arisen for filing this application which on the face of it is misconceived. After decision of the Honourable Supreme Court dismissing the appeal of the applicant, no other Court could sit over the said judgment. I am also of the view that the Revision‑Application No.29 of 2002 was misconceived. The learned A.A.‑G. has also opposed this application. For the reasons stated above, this application merits no consideration and it is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑472/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.