2001 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Administration of justice, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Administration of justice, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- I have also heard Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh, on behalf of the State and perused the material placed on the record.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 203
Cognizable and non-compoundable offence
Dismissal of case for non-prosecution
Case arising out of the cognizable and non -compoundable offences could not be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Principle
Courts while imparting/administering the justice had to avoid technicalities.
S. 203
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161
Restoring case after dismissal for non-prosecution --Trial Court, on filing direct complaint by complainant, held preliminary enquiry, took cognizance of case and after completing all the codal formalities framed charge against the accused
Trial Court dismissed complaint for non-prosecution, -but on the application of complainant restored the same
Original order with regard to taking the cognizance of case being not without jurisdiction, order restoring complaint would not suffer from any illegality or impropriety
Contention that Court had no jurisdiction to restore the complaint to its original position and only remedy available to complainant was to file the fresh complaint was repelled being misconceived.
Judgment & Decree
Subramania Kandar v. Ramaswami Kandar AIR 1949 Mad. 154 ref. Mushtaq Ahmed Leghari for Applicant. Sher Muhammad Shar, Asstt. A.G. for the State. By this criminal revision application, the applicant Ghulam Hussain has assailed the order, dated 30-3-2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur in Direct Complaint No.39 of 1997 Re. Gul Muhammad v. Ghulam Hussain. The brief facts of the case are that on 11-4-1997 complainant filed a direct complaint before the learned trial Court and after holding the preliminary enquiry, the same was brought on the file. After completing all the codal formalities, the formal' charge was framed on 7-10-1998 against the accused. On 19-2-2000, the learned trial Court dismissed the direct complaint for non-prosecution. On 8-3-2000, the complainant moved an application before the trial Court for excuse of his absence and recalling of the order, dated 19-2-2000. The learned trial Judge recalled the order; dated 194-2000. by impugned order on 30-3-2000 and restored the case to its original position. I have heard Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Leghari, learned counsel for the applicant. He placed reliance on the case of Subramania Kandar v. Ramaswami Kandar AIR (36) 1949 Mad.
154. I have also heard Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh, on behalf of the State and perused the material placed on the record. The perusal of the record shows that the offences alleged are punishable under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which are cognizable and non- compoundable. The cases which arise out of the offences which are cognizable and non-compoundable cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. It is well-settled that while imparting/administering the justice, Courts have to avoid technicalities. The contention that the Court had no jurisdiction to restore the complaint to its original position and only remedy available to the complainant was to file the fresh complaint is misconceived. The original order with regard to taking the cognizance was not without jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. The citation in case of Subramania Kandar (ibid) is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Resultantly, the present Criminal Revision Application No.74 of 2000 merits no consideration and stands dismissed alongwith listed application. H.B.T./G-29/K Revision dismissed.