P L D 1982 Karachi 128 (PLP)
KHAIR SHAH AND 4 others‑Petitioners Versus HYDER SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1982 Karachi 128 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑ Ss. 435 & 439 read with Ss. 249 & 417(2)‑Revision, competency of‑Contention that accused having been acquitted in a direct complaint under S. 247, Cr. P. C. no revision competent and only an application under S. 417(2), Cr. P. C. could be filed to seek leave of High Court‑Contention, held, correct.‑‑Acquittal‑Revision (criminal). |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid, J |
| Parties | KHAIR SHAH AND 4 others‑Petitioners Versus HYDER SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1982 Karachi 128 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1982 Karachi 128 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑ Ss. 435 & 439 read with Ss. 249 & 417(2)‑Revision, competency of‑Contention that accused having been acquitted in a direct complaint under S. 247, Cr. P. C. no revision competent and only an application under S. 417(2), Cr. P. C. could be filed to seek leave of High Court‑Contention, held, correct.‑‑Acquittal‑Revision (criminal). bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1982 Karachi 128 (PLP) (KHAIR SHAH AND 4 others‑Petitioners Versus HYDER SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing : 30th April, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑ Ss. 435 & 439 read with Ss. 249 & 417(2)‑Revision, competency of‑Contention that accused having been acquitted in a direct complaint under S. 247, Cr. P. C. no revision competent and only an application under S. 417(2), Cr. P. C. could be filed to seek leave of High Court‑Contention, held, correct.‑‑[Acquittal‑Revision (criminal)]. Ghulm QadirJatoi for Applicants. Khadim All Shoro for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This Revision Application under sections 435 and 439, Cr. P. C. has been filed against the judgment dated 24‑6‑1979 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, setting aside the order of acquittal dated 24‑1‑1979 passed by the Joint Civil Judge & F. C. M., Sukkut under section 247, Cr. P. C. and remanding the case for retrial against the 5 applicants.
2. A direct complaint had been filed by respondent No. 1 against the present applicants, in which case the trial Court had taken cognizance. However, by order dated 24‑1‑1979 the Joint Civil Judge & F. C. M., Sukkur passed the following order acquitting the applicants under section 247, Cr. P. C. :‑ "Complainant called absent. Eassan Shah the relative of complainant has moved application for excuse absence of complainant. On last date of hearing the complainant moved the same application which was allowed as‑ last chance. This is a direct complaint pending since 15‑11‑1976. The complainant is unnecessary trying the tactics of lingering on the proceedings and I do not want to keep this case pending still so far without any good reason. 1. therefore, acquit the accused under section 247, Cr. P. C."
3. Against the above order dated 24‑1‑1979, respondent No. 1 filed a criminal revision which, as observed earlier, was allowed by judgment dated ?,4‑6‑1979 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur. It is contended by Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi that no revision is competent against the acquittal in a direct complaint of the accused under section 247, Cr. P. C. and only an application can be filed by the complainant under section 417(2),` Cr. P. C. to this Court for leave to appeal. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is correct and Mr. Kha.dim Ali Shoro concedes to this position but raises the preliminary objection that the present criminal revision filed by the applicants in this Court, which is a second revision application, is not competent. If this preliminary objection is accepted, the result would be that an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without jurisdiction will remain in the field. In the circum stances, I treat this criminal revision application as an application under section 551‑A, C"r. P. C. and allow the same and set aside the impugned judgment dated 24‑6‑1979 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur passed in Criminal Revision No. 138/79. Revision allowed,