2001 P Cr (PLP)

Lala Ghansham DasBirala and others v. Suraj Bhan AIR 1940 Lah. 192; R.H. Brightling Manager American Express Co. (Inc.), Lahore v. Saeed Ahmad Choudhry 1968 PCr.LJ 1818; Syed Ali Hussain Jaffri v. Masood Jilani and others 1997 PCr.LJ 746; Maulana Muhammad Azam Tariq, M.N.A. v. Khurshid Ali and another 1996 PCr.LJ 119 and Juan Sullivan v. The State 1971 SCMR 618 ref. Dr. Z. Babar Awan for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 122/M of 2000) and for Respondent No. 2 (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 65/Q of 1999). Sardar Muhammad Ishaque Khan for Respondents (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 122/M of 2000 and for Petitioners (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 65/Q of 1999). Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2000. Instant petition has been filed for clarification and correction of the judgment, dated 20-1-2000 whereby proceedings arising out of the private complaint lodged at the instance of applicant (Respondent No. 2 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 65/Q of 1999) were quashed.

2. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that while passing judgment, dated 20-1-2000 the applicant has not been allowed to file a fresh complaint and as such the impugned judgment requires correction/ clarification on that score. He submits that such clarification/correction can be made in the impugned judgment and placed reliance upon Dildar v. Safdar and 2 others 1990 PCr.LJ 158 (Peshawar), Kaura v. The State and others 1983 SCMR 436, Shahkot Bus Service, Shahkot v. The State and others 1969 SCMR 325, Fazal Haq v. The State PLD 1982 Lahore 452, Muhammad Shafique and others v. Abdul Hayee and others 1987 SCMR 1371, Abid Ali and another v. The State 1992 MLD 743, Ahmad Jan v. District and Sessions Judge and another PLD 1994 Quetta 1, Muhammad Ilyas Khan alias Lasi Khan v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ (Peshawar) 90 and Zulfiqar Ali v. The State PLD 1984 Lahore 461.

4. Conversely, the stand of learned counsel for the respondents (petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 65/Q of 1999) is that very petition is not maintainable as no clarification/correction or review of any order passed by a Criminal Court is warranted by law and placed reliance upon Lala Ghansham Das Birala and others v. Suraj Bhan AIR 1940 Lahore 192, R.H. Brightling Manager American Express Co. (Inc.), Lahore v. Saeed Ahmad Choudhry 1968 PCr.LJ 1818, Syed Ali Hussain Jaffri v. Masood Jilani and others 1997 PCr.LJ 746, Maulana Muhammad Azam Tariq, M.N.A. v. Khurshid Ali and another 1996 PCr.LJ 119 and Juan Sullivan v. The State 1971 SCMR 618.

5. Admittedly, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 65/Q of 1999 for the quashment of complaint lodged at the instance of applicant was accepted vide judgment, dated 20-i-2000 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length. Now the applicant (respondent No. 2 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 65/Q of 1999) wants clarification/correction of the order dated 20-1-2000. His contention is that order, dated 2-1-2000 is silent about the fact if the applicant can file a fresh complaint or not as such it requires clarification/correction. Conversely the stand of learned counsel for respondents (petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 65/Q of 1999) is that no such clarification/correction can be made after passing an order. His stand is that only clerical and arithmetical error can be corrected and no other clarification or correction is warranted as stipulated under section 369, Cr.P.C. Both the learned counsel have produced authorities in support of their respective stands. So far as the authorities produced by the learned counsel for the applicant (respondent No. 2 in the original criminal miscellaneous) are concerned, these are not relevant to the facts in hand and none of the said authorities relates to the point in issue and all these relate to the interpretation of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. However, the authorities referred by the learned counsel for the respondents (petitioners in the original criminal miscellaneous) relate to the matter in issue.

6. There is no doubt that section 561-A, Cr.P.C. confers inherent powers upon this Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any J Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But it does not give any power to make correction/clarification of order passed by the Court. There is a specific provision of law which deals with this aspect of the matter and that is incorporated in section 369, Cr.P.C. It is specifically and categorically mentioned in the said section that no Court when it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error. Learned counsel for the applicant (respondent No. 2) in the original criminal miscellaneous has not produced a single authority on the point if any clarification or correction except that of clerical or of arithmetical nature can be made by any Court after it had signed the judgment. The authorities produced by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to section 561-A, Cr.P.C. which is not applicable in the instant case as the very order of which clarification/correction is being sought has been passed tinder section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The relevant section in the instant case is section 369, Cr.P.C. and. not 561-A, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for respondents (petitioners in the original Criminal Miscellaneous) on the other hand has produced judgments pertaining to section 369, Cr.P.C. which are relevant for the adjudication of matter in issue. A perusal of the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the respondents (petitioners in the original criminal miscellaneous) prove B conclusively that High Court cannot review its own order passed in criminal jurisdiction. Even the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the petition for clarification of order passed by the Court is unknown to Rules framed by the Supreme Court and has further held that the Court becomes functus officio after it passes and signs the order.

7. In the light of facts stated above, it is proved that very application for seeking clarification/correction in the order and the same is hereby dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./I-33/L Petition dismissed.