2019 P Cr (PLP)
HAKIM ALI — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAKIM ALI — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 P Cr (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 2019 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 P Cr (PLP) (HAKIM ALI — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 517 & 17(3)
Disposal of property regarding which offence committed
Applicant, by way of revision application had impugned order of Assistant Sessions Judge, whereby application under S. 517, Cr.P.C. for return of his gun, the subject matter of case, outcome of FIR registered under Ss. 324, 353, 427 & 34, P.P.C., was dismissed
Section 17(3), Cr.P.C. laid down that Assistant Sessions Judge shall be subordinate to Sessions Judge of the District within which he exercised jurisdiction
Sessions Judge from time to time could frame rules for distribution of business among the Assistant Sessions Judges
Assistant Sessions Judge had no original jurisdiction whatsoever, and his jurisdiction depended upon what the Sessions Judge devised for him
Conversely, the Sessions Judge could withdraw any case that might be pending on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge--Held, that revisional jurisdiction against the order of the Assistant Sessions Judges rested with the Sessions Judge
Revision application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.
The applicant by way of instant criminal revision application has impugned order dated 20.04.2017 of learned Ist. Assistant Sessions Judge, Sanghar, whereby his application under section 517, Cr.P.C. for return of his gun, the subject matter of case outcome of FIR Crime No.24/2016, under sections 324, 353, 427 and 34, P.P.C. of Police Station Sinjhoro, was dismissed.
2. On being asked, how the instant criminal revision application could be maintained before this Court, as the order which is impugned is passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge?
3. In response to above, it was stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that entire revisional jurisdiction in criminal cases lies with this Court, if orders are passed by Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge.
4. While rebutting the above contention, it was stated by learned APG, that the revisional jurisdiction against order of Assistant Sessions Judge lies with the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. Subsection 3 of section 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is titled as "Subordination of Assistant Sessions Judges to Sessions Judge". The said provision reads as under: "All Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to Sessions Judges whose Court they exercise jurisdiction and he may from time to time, make rules consistent with this Code as to the distribution of business among such Assistant Sessions Judges." The perusal of above section lays down that Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to Sessions Judge of the District within which they exercise jurisdiction; additionally Sessions Judge from time to time can frame rules for distribution of business among the Assistant Sessions Judges. It also lays down that an Assistant Sessions Judge has no original jurisdiction whatsoever, and his jurisdiction depend upon what the Sessions Judge devises for him and conversely the Sessions Judge can withdraw any case that may be pending on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge.
6. In case of Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Rauf and others, which is reported at 1983 PCr.LJ 1390 while dealing with similar question, the Division Bench of our own High Court observed that; "We are of the view that one of the main factors, which needs consideration in deciding questions of this nature is the venue of appeal. Normally, it can be said that the Court hearing an appeal against an order, or, judgment of another Court should be considered to be superior to that Court, and the concept of inferiority of Courts, as mentioned in section 435, Cr.P.C. can be decided on that rationals. In the present case also an Assistant Sessions Judge has to depend on the distribution of work that has to be done by the Sessions Judge, and appeals against the judgments of the Assistant Sessions Judge also lie to the Court of Session."
8. The above discussion involves a conclusion that entire revisional jurisdiction against the orders of the Assistant Sessions Judges lies with the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction. Consequently, the instant criminal revision application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction with opportunity to applicant to file the same afresh before the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction for its disposal in accordance with law. JK/H-20/Sindh Revision dismissed.