1986 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. SHAHAB AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | Mst. SHAHAB AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. SHAHAB AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Rashid Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Art. 199‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 249‑A & 435/439‑‑Additional Sessions Judge dismissing revision petition on ground that same was incompetent as relief could be sought by invoking provisions of S.249‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑Additional Sessions Judge, held, had erred to hold that revision petition against order of Magistrate to was no competent‑‑Additional Sessions Judge was competent to revive order of Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction vested in him and provisions of S.249‑A, Cr.P.C, created no impediment in his way to hear and decide revision petition on merits. Najam‑uz‑Zaman, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Rashid Awan for Petitioner. Najam‑uz‑Zaman, A.A.‑G. for the State. This writ petition is directed against order, dated 12‑11‑1985 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby he dismissed revision petition filed by the petitioner in limine on the ground that the same was incompetent as the petitioner could obtain relief by invoking the provisions of section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. before the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has refused to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in him under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. The provisions of section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. create no bar in exercise of revisional jurisdiction available to the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General, on the other hand, submitted that in fact the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not properly worded. He, however, conceded that the provisions of section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. are distinct and create no bar to exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 435/439, Cr.P.C.
4. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad has erred to hold that the revision petition against the order of the Magistrate was not competent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is competent to revise order of the learned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction duly vested in him. The provisions of section the 249-A Cr.P.C, create no impediment in his way to hear and decide rev petition on merits. In this view of the matter the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and declared to be of no legal effect.
5. This petition is allowed with a direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide the revision petition on merits. H.A.K. Writ issued