1999 PLP 132 (YLR)
NEK MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 132 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | NEK MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑ Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 132 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 132 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 132 (YLR) (NEK MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nasir Mahfooz for Petitioner.
- Nawabzada Saleem Dil for Respondents Nos.2 to 6 and Kh. Azhar Rashid, A. A.‑G. for the State.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.302/404/148/149‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439‑‑‑Revision against acquittal‑‑‑Competence‑‑‑Accused had been acquitted by Sessions Court under S.265‑K, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Revision petition against said order of acquittal was not competent in view of the provisions of S.439(5), Cr. P. C. which had barred the revision petition if the impugned order was appealable ‑‑‑Revision petition even could not be converted into an appeal as the same was barred by time by about six months which could not be condoned under the circumstances of the case‑‑‑Revision petition was consequently dismissed being not competent.
Judgment & Decree
Arguments heard. Record of the case perused.
2. This Criminal Revision petition, filed against the judgment of Zaila Qazi/Sessions Judge, Malakand at Batkhela Camp Court Chakdara, recorded on 13‑12‑1997, Vide: which respondents -accused Nos.2 to 6, charged for committing offences, punishable under sections 302/404/148/149, P.P.C., in case registered Vide: F.I.R. No.321, dated 20‑9‑1994 lodged at Police Station Ouch, were acquitted under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C., is not at all competent in view of the provisions laid down in section 439(5), Cr.P.C. which is to the following effect:‑‑‑ "439 (5) Cr.P.C. Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. "
3. Beside this the present Criminal Revision cannot be converted into an appeal as the same was filed on 14‑7‑1998 and is, therefore, barred by time by about six (6) months, which, under the circumstances of this case, cannot be condoned.
4. Since this Criminal Revision is not competent, therefore, it is dismissed alongwith the condonation application i.e., No. Cr.M.No.116 of 1999. N.H.Q./362/P Revision petition dismissed.