2002 P Cr (PLP)
ZAHOOR and another — Petitioners Versus SAID-UL-IBRAR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2002 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAHOOR and another — Petitioners Versus SAID-UL-IBRAR and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 P Cr (PLP) (ZAHOOR and another — Petitioners Versus SAID-UL-IBRAR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hamidullali Bangash for Petitioners.
- S. Attique Shah for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 200, 247, 417(2) & 439(5)
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5
Private complaint, dismissal of
Order passed under S.247, Cr.P.C. was appealable under S.417(2), Cr.P.C. subject to the grant of leave to appeal and it was immaterial whether the order of acquittal was passed on some evidence or for non-prosecution in a complaint case, the aggrieved complainant could approach the High Court under S.417(2), Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal-- No revision petition tinder S.439(5), Cr.P.C. could be entertained where a right of appeal was provided tinder Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-- Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Hamidullali Bangash for Petitioners. S. Attique Shah for Respondents. Muhammad Jamil Qamar for the State. Date of hearing: 19th September, 2001. The instant revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 2-1-2001 whereby the private complaint filed by the petitioners against the respondents was dismissed for non-prosecution resulting into acquittal of the accused respondents.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding maintainability of the revision petition in view of the provisions contained in sections 247 and 417(2) of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a case reported in 1997 PCr.LJ 1620 wherein an order under section 249-A of the Cr.P.C. granting acquittal to the accused was held to be not appealable and it was observed that only an order of acquittal passed under section 245, Cr.P.C. passed on appraisal of evidence could be called in question through appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. but when acquittal is granted without recording evidence or discussing evidence and mere on the ground of no possibility of conviction appeal was held to be not competent.
3. In rebuttal the learned counsel for accused-respondents relied on 1990 PCr.LJ 1699 where in identical circumstances when private complaint was dismissed in default under section 247, Cr.P.C. the Appellate Court observed that such order of acquittal is appealable under section 417(2) of the Cr.P.C.
4. The learned State Counsel supported the contention of accused-respondents and submitted that the impugned order was appealable and due to availability of right of appeal revision is not competent.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for parties at length and going through the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the cited judgments I am of the view that an order passed under section 247, Cr.P.C. is appealable under section 417(2) of the Cr.P.C. subject to the grant of leave to appeal. It is immaterial whether the order of acquittal is passed on some evidence or for non-prosecution in a complaint case the aggrieved complainant could approach to this Court under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal. Under section 439(5), Cr.P.C. no revision petition could be entertained where a right of appeal is provided under the Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter relying on a judgment reported in 1990 PCr.LJ 1699 I hold that the instant revision petition is not maintainable. I, therefore, dismiss this revision petition. H.B.T./373/P Revision petition dismissed.