2017 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus GHULAM MOHAMMAD PARVI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court (Skardu Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus GHULAM MOHAMMAD PARVI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court (Skardu Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM HAIDER — Petitioner Versus GHULAM MOHAMMAD PARVI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 369 & 22-A
Alteration or review of judgment by Chief Court
Scope
Complainant, in the present case, had moved an application for registration of FIR before Justice of Peace who directed the concerned police station for registration of FIR
Accused challenged registration of said FIR before Chief Court by filing writ petition which was quashed by the Division Bench of Chief Court
Held, there was no concept of review in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
No floating error had been pointed out in the impugned judgment, which might persuade the Chief Court to review its earlier judgment, which was otherwise barred by law
Petition was dismissed being meritless.
S. 369
Scope
Court of criminal jurisdiction had been precluded to review/alter the judgment after it was written, signed and announced except to correct a clerical error.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The brief facts of the case are that one Haider son of Raza resident of Hassan Colony Skardu submitted an application under section 22-A on 23.7.2012 for registration of FIR against respondent stating therein that respondent is trying to usurp the property measuring five kanal two marlas and he has demolished a boundary wall on 9.4.2012. The petitioner further submitted in the petition that he approached the SHO Police Station Skardu but in vain and prayed for necessary direction to SHO under section 22-A for registration of FIR.
2. The learned Sessions Judge Skardu on 25.7.20-12 issued directions for registration of FIR to SHO Police Station Skardu and FIR No.62/12 was registered under sections 447/427/341, P.P.C. on 9.4.2012 at Police Station City Skardu, against the respondent.
3. The respondent by means of a writ petition No. 53/12 challenged the registration of FIR and prayed for its quashment. The case was heard by a D.B. of this Court and the FIR No. 62/12 of Police Station Skardu was quashed vide order 14.5.2013.
4. The complainant feeling aggrieved of the order of this court filed a review petition for re-hearing of the case.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment in instant case was passed on 14.5.2013 and there is no concept/scheme of law provided in Cr.P.C. to review a criminal judgment. Although the word "Judgment" is not defined in Cr.P.C. but the word judgment is a word of general import, which means "judicial determination" of decision of Court: once when a judgment is announced then it cannot be reviewed as there is a bar to alter or review the same. Section 369, Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:- S. 369.... Court not to alter judgment.... Save as otherwise provided by this court or by any other law for the time being in force or, in case of a High Court, by the Letters Patent of such High Court no Court when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error."
6. The provision of section 369, Cr.P.C. has precluded the Court of criminal jurisdiction to review/alter the judgment, after it has been written, signed and announced.
7. There is no concept of criminal review in Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, no floating error has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, which may persuade us to review an earlier judgment, which is otherwise barred by law.
8. The nutshell of above discussion is that the review petition is dismissed being meritless. WA/123/GB Petition dismissed.