P L D 1996 Lahore 215 (PLP)
CORPORATION through Managing Director ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SHUKAR ULLAH and others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1996 Lahore 215 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J ~ |
| Parties | CORPORATION through Managing Director ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SHUKAR ULLAH and others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1996 Lahore 215 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1996 Lahore 215 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J ~.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1996 Lahore 215 (PLP) (CORPORATION through Managing Director ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus SHUKAR ULLAH and others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Amin Ullah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ref . ‑‑‑‑ S. 561‑A ‑‑‑ Inherent jurisdiction ‑‑‑ Quashing of revisional order ‑‑‑ Revisional order passed by a competent Court is not amenable to interference by High Court in exercise of its powers under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. unless the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the said Court on the face of it is either totally illegal or entirely fanciful or irrational. Saleh Muhammad v. Abdur Rehman and others 1985 PCr.LJ 1055 (Ch, Muhaimnad Nasim, 3) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ S. 561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409 ‑‑‑ Quashing of revisional order ‑‑‑ Accused respondent had been acquitted by the trial Magistrate and the revision against that order had been dismissed by the Sessions Court as being incompetent having been filed by an incompetent person ‑‑‑ Order of Sessions Court could not be shown to be illegal or fanciful so as to justify interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under S.561‑A, Cr. P.C. ‑‑‑Revision having been filed in Sessions Court after a period of more than one year, such petition also suffered from laches ‑‑‑ Petition was dismissed in limine in circumstances. Saleh Muhammad v. Abdur Rehman and others 1985 PCr.LJ 1055 ref, Ch. Muhammad Anwar Dholen for the State
Judgment & Decree
Respondent. Shukar Ullah was acquitted by the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 26‑2‑1991. Revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was filed on 29‑6‑1992 which was dismissed as being incompetent having been filed by an incompetent person. 1
2. The main question involved in this matter is as to whether the revisional order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is amenable to interference in exercise of powers under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. The controversy has been settled by the Peshawar High Court in the case of Saleh Muharrunad V4 Abdur Rehman etc. 1985 PCr.LJ 1055 wherein it was held:‑‑‑ "In the very outset it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that once revisional powers were exercised by tfie learned Sessions Judge, entertainment of any further proceedings by this Court in revision with regard to the said order are barred in view of clause (b) of subsection (4) of section 439, Cr.P.C. because there is no provision for second revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contended that this Court had ample powers to set aside the revisional order of the Sessions Judge in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. by this Court is not to be exercised in the manner to induct a rule of precedence as if a second revisional jurisdiction is being invoked. Where once a revisionai jurisdiction is exercised by a competent forum, unless it is clear on its very face that the exercise was either totally illegal or extravagantly fanciful or the order thus passed was irrational invoking! jurisdiction, of this Court under section 561‑A, Cr.P,C. would be an I A effort futile," .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that the order i of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was illegal or fanciful so as to justify interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C Further more, the petitioner being a statutory body should have been vigilant in pursuing remedy. The order acquitting the accused was passed on 26‑2‑1991 by the learned trial Magistrate while revision was filed on 29‑6‑1992, after a period of more than one year. The petition, therefore, also suffers from laches. There is no cavil with the proposition that section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. bestows inherent powers upon a High Court to check abuse of the process of a Court but before bringing into play the powers, fault is to be detected in* the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Since no fault could be pointed by learned counsel for the petitioper, I find myself unable to interfere with the impugned order. For what has been discussed above, there is no force in this petition. It fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./P‑137/L Petition dismissed