1996 P Cr (PLP)

Noor Elahi v. The State and others PLD 1966 SC 708 ref. M.J.I. Jafree for Petitioner. Malik Ghaus Bakhsh Lang father of Khurshid Ahmad Lang was murdered and about the said murder crime Case No. 170 of 1983 was registered at Police Station Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan. After full-fledged investigation the challan was submitted in the Court of the Area Magistrate who in terms of section 190(3), Cr.P.C. sent up the same to the Court of Session. The full-fledged trial was held by Ch. Muhammad Ali, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan. The accused persons were acquitted vide judgment, dated 27-6-1985 and they were released.

2. The petitioner, even thereafter, took up the matter about the murder of his father before different quarters and his efforts in the matter have remained futile as the aforesaid judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan is not subject to review as contemplated under section 369, Criminal Procedure Code.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the judgment, dated 26-6-1985 about the acquittal of the accused of the aforesaid murder case was procured through fraud, duress and deception because during the relevant days Martial Law was imposed in the country and some of the Army Officers interfered.

4. The proposed relief of the petitioner is that section 369, Criminal Procedure Code may be declared to be unconstitutional and that the State may be directed to reopen the investigation of the murder case and to further proceed in the matter afresh.

5. I have heard the preliminary arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed before me that the administration of justice is the job of the Courts and that this Constitutional Court should see the quantum of injustice which has been faced by the petitioner due to the incorporation of section 369, Criminal Procedure Code, according to which the matter cannot be reviewed. He ornamented his arguments by citing Criminal Law of America in the matter, according to which, even after some years the judgment(s) was challenged and altered. I am afraid, the assertions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be given the legal weight. Section 369, Criminal Procedure Code has stood the test of the time and any interference in the provisions of the same would be simply opening of pandora's box. Keeping in view the texture of the society and social set-up there must be an end to the civil and criminal litigation. In the civil field the law of limitation was introduced so that the law favours vigilant and not the indolent and that after the lapse of a certain period the right even though in existence cannot be agitated. Likewise no exception can be taken to the incorporation and the existence of the mandatory provisions of section 369, Cr.P.C. The interpretation which is for the betterment of the society and the public at large has to be expressed and followed. My view is that section 369, Criminal Procedure Code is not exceptional. The trial was conducted iii accordance with the substantive and procedural law of the country and the accused persons were acquitted on 27-6-1985. Thereafter there is no occasion to reopen the matter on the aforesaid grounds and the assertions. Another aspect of the matter which has stolen the eminence is that if the petitioner was not satisfied with the working of the police he could file a private complaint and the trial of the complaint case would have been given the preference as against the challan case in the light of the dictum enunciated in the ruling published as Noor Elahi v. The State and others PLD 1966 SC

708. On the basis of this reasoning as well this writ petition cannot be further processed with.

6. For what has been said above, I see no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same in limine. N.H.Q./P-2/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.