PCRLJ 2000

2000 P Cr (PLP)

MALIK MUHAMMAD YASIN — Appellant Versus RAJA MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and 4 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Decided Date
merits and that there was no concept of dismissal for non-prosecution in Code of Criminal Procedure-- Rule that ."once a criminal appeal was admitted it must be decided on merits and could not be dismissed for non-prosecution", only related to appeal and not to revision---No appeal before Shariat Court was filed rather a revision petition had been filed which did not relate to guilt or innocence of any person but, was filed to challenge order by which an inquiry had been order ---Principles applicable to disposal of an appeal were not applicable to revision petition and criminal revision could be dismissed for non -prosecution
Honorable Judges
Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, C. J. and Basharat Ahmad Shaikh, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2000 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Bench Members Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, C. J. and Basharat Ahmad Shaikh, J
Parties MALIK MUHAMMAD YASIN — Appellant Versus RAJA MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and 4 others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 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 2000 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, C. J. and Basharat Ahmad Shaikh, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (MALIK MUHAMMAD YASIN — Appellant Versus RAJA MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Appellant. ;
  • Raja Shiraz Kayani, Advocate-General for Respondents.
  • "PRESENT: Nemo for the Petitioner. Respondent No. l in person. Syed Ejaz Ali Gilani, Assistant Advocate-General for the State.
  • The learned Advocate-General also supported this argument.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 423 & 439

Azad. Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act (IX of 1974), S.25

Dismissal of revision for non -prosecution

Accused persons filed application, during trial, alleging that they had been tortuied by police and first informant

Trial Court appointed Sub-Judge-cum-Magistrate to hold inquiry into allegations of torture

Said order of Trial Court was challenged by complainant party by filing revision petition in Shariat Court, ' which petition was dismissed for non-prosecution

Said dismissal order had been sought to be annulled on ground that criminal matter had to be decided on merits and that there was no concept of dismissal for non-prosecution in Code of Criminal Procedure-- Rule that ."once a criminal appeal was admitted it must be decided on merits and could not be dismissed for non-prosecution", only related to appeal and not to revision

No appeal before Shariat Court was filed rather a revision petition had been filed which did not relate to guilt or innocence of any person but, was filed to challenge order by which an inquiry had been order

Principles applicable to disposal of an appeal were not applicable to revision petition and criminal revision could be dismissed for non -prosecution.

Judgment & Decree

Despite repeated calls since morning neither the petitioner nor his counsel has turned up, therefore, the above-titled revision petition is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution. Muzaffarabad. 7-4-1999 Judge."

3. Through this revision/appeal, the first informant seeks annulment of the order of dismissal. The short ground advanced by his learned counsel Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan is that a criminal matter has to be decided on merits and there is no concept of dismissal for non-prosecution in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel relies on the case reported as Muhammad Ashiq Faqir v. The State PLD 1970 SC 177 and Ramautar Thakur and others v. State of Bihar AIR 1957 Pat.

33. The learned Advocate-General also supported this argument. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Ashiq Faqir case relates to interpretation of section 423(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:-- "

423. Powers of Appellate Court in disposing of appeal.

(1) The Appellate Court shall then send for the record of the case, if such record is not already in Court. After perusing such record, and hearing the appellant or his Pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears, and in case of an appeal under (section 411-A, subsection (2) or section 417), the accused, if he appears, the Court may, if it considers .that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may . " On the phraseology it was held that once a criminal appeal is admitted it must be decided on merits and cannot be dismissed for non- prosecution. It was also held that if -the appellant or his Pleader does not appear when the case is called for hearing the Court has to peruse the record and decided the case. There are several other cases of Federal Court as well as the Supreme Court which are to the same effect. However, the above dictum has no application to the present case. The above dictum only relates to appeals and not to revisions and is based on the plain requirement of section 423 which is clearly to the effect that even if a person who has filed appeal is not present or his counsel is not present the Court has to peruse the record. However, in the present case there was no appeal before the Shariat Court but was a revision petition which did not relate to the guilt or innocence of any person. It had been filed to challenge an order by which an inquiry had been ordered. The inquiry was of a preliminary nature as a result of which no conviction or acquittal had to be recorded. It was ordered only to find out whether the accused persons had been tortured or not. The principles applicable to disposal of an appeal are clearly not applicable to the revision petition which did not relate to guilt or innocence of any person as is in the case of an appeal. We may also mention that the other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fortifies our view. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Ramautar's case held that if a criminal revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution it can be restored under inherent powers of the Court. It indirectly lays down that a criminal revision can be dismissed for non-prosecution. No case has been cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the contention that criminal revision cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. We, therefore, find no force in this revision/appeal and order its dismissal. H.B.T./450/SC (AJ&K) Revision dismissed.