2012 P Cr (PLP)

SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

The legality of order dated 1-6-2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has been assailed by the petitioner whereby order dated 16-1-2009 regarding the issuance of a direction for registration of case was re-called.

2. The facts giving rise to the present criminal revision petition are that Pervaiz Amin, father of the present petitioner, got registered a case F.I.R. No.6 of 2009 for offences under sections 506/448/148/149/511, P.P.C. and 29 Telegraph Act at Police Station Ghaziabad, Lahore against Muhammad Zafar, Muhammad Sajjad and Muhammad Mushtaq accused/respondents. The said respondents filed an application seeking pre arrest bail wherein they mentioned the offences under section 506/448/148/149/511, P.P.C. and failed to mention offence under section 29 of Telegraph Act. The ad interim pre-arrest bail was granted but later on it transpired that the judicial record was tampered with and the offence under section 29 of Telegraph Act was illegally added therein. Thereupon, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 16-1-2009 directed the Reader of the Court to get a case registered for the said tampering of record at Police Station Islampura, Lahore. Later on Muhammad Zafar respondent made a petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for withdrawal of order dated 16-1-2009, which was allowed and vide impugned order dated 1-6-2009, the said order dated 16-1-2009 was recalled. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to recall its own order dated 16-1-2009 as there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 for recalling or reviewing the order passed by the same Court, therefore, the impugned order dated 1-6-2009 is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this petition and contended that the respondents were sufficiently punished by the rejection of their pre-arrest bail on the ground of alleged tempering with the judicial record and they had put themselves at the mercy of the Court and the Court has rightly pardoned them by recalling its order dated 16-1-2009.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

6. Allegedly, respondents Nos.1 to 3 made a petition seeking their pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.6 of 2009 registered under sections 506/ 448/148/149/511, P.P.C. and 29-Telegraph Act. During the proceedings it transpired that the petitioners have not mentioned the offence under section 29 of the Telegraph Act in their petition and the said offence was mentioned in the order granting ad interim pre arrest bail but later on it transpired that offence under section 29, Telegraph Act has been added in the judicial record in different hand and ink, therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge immediately directed for registration of case vide order dated 16-1-2009. After six months of passing the aforesaid order, Muhammad Zafar respondent No. 1 made a petition before the learned Additional Session Judge with the request to withdraw the aforesaid order whereon the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order for withdrawal of order dated 16-1-2009 vide impugned order dated 1-6-2009. It is settled law that a Court becomes functus officio after it passes and signs any order, no Court including High Court can review its order passed in criminal jurisdiction. Reliance can be placed on "2001 PCr.LJ. 222 Lahore", "1997 PCr.LJ 74 Karachi" and "1971 SCMR 618".

7. Under section 369, Cr.P.C. no Court when it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error. What to speak of Sessions Court, even High Court has been precluded under section 369, Cr.P.C. to review its order. Sanctity is attached to the judicial record and tampering therein is a heinous offence. The concept of recalling of judicial order is alien to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore was not competent to withdraw its earlier order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 1-6-2009 is liable to be set aside.

8. In this view of the matter the revision petition in hand is accepted and the impugned order dated 1-6-2009 is set aside. N.H.Q./A-22/L Petition accepted.