P L D 1956 Dacca 188 (PLP)
NURUL ISLAM‑Complainant Versus SAIBUDDIN and others‑Accused
| Citation | P L D 1956 Dacca 188 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ellis C. J. and Badiuzzaman, J |
| Parties | NURUL ISLAM‑Complainant Versus SAIBUDDIN and others‑Accused |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1956 Dacca 188 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1956 Dacca 188 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ellis C. J. and Badiuzzaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1956 Dacca 188 (PLP) (NURUL ISLAM‑Complainant Versus SAIBUDDIN and others‑Accused). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 439‑Application, The Revisional Jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 439 of the Criminal P. C. is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal against which the Government has a right of appeal under section 417 of Criminal P. C. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or for the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record. A. Salam in Opposition to the Reference. 'No one in. support of the Reference.
Judgment & Decree
ELLIS, C. J.‑‑This is a reference by Mr. A. O. R. Rahman, Additional‑‑ District Magistrate of Comilla. It is directed against an order of Mr. S. H. Chowdhury, a Magistrate of the 2nd Class at Brahmanbaria, acquitting under section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, three persons who were charged with an offence under section 379 of the P. P. C. Once more we must remind Subordinate Courts that this Court will not, in the exercise of Revisional jurisdic tion, lightly interfere with the orders of acquittal passed by Magistrates. We have already drawn attention to the observations made elsewhere with regard to the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court: "The Revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Court is not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal against which the 'Government has a right of appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or for the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record." In the present case, the learned Additional District Magistrate being moved by a private complainant; has asked us to‑ interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that the learned Magistrate has mis-appreciated the evidence on record. We see no reason to do so. The reference is accordingly rejected. K. B. A. M. S. Reference rejected.