2012 P Cr (PLP)
MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 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 2012 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 P Cr (PLP) (MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Aqeel Wahid Chaudhry for Petitioner.
- Nisar Ahmad Virk, D.P.-G. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/337-F(v)
Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and causing Mudihah
Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution
Accused who was convicted and sentenced, assailed his sentence before Appellate Court
Appeal was admitted and sentence of accused was suspended
Accused having failed to appear before Appellate Court, not only his concession of bail granted under S.426, Cr.P.C. was withdrawn, and his bail bonds were confiscated, but also his appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution
Appeal which had already been admitted for regular hearing should have been decided on merit and same could not be dismissed for non-prosecution
Impugned order, in circumstances, was set aside and appeal filed by accused, would be deemed to be pending; and would be decided on merits in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.
The complainant/respondent No.2 has not put in appearance despite issuance of notice to him. The petitioner, in a private complaint under section 324/337F(v), P.P.C. was tried and convicted to suffer 4 years' R.I. as Tazir and also to pay an amount of Rs.20,000 as Daman. He assailed his sentence before the Appellate Court. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing by Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur and his sentence was suspended. The petitioner failed to appear before the appellate Court on 11-5-2011 and not only the concession of bail granted under section 426, Cr.P.C. was withdrawn and his bail bonds were confiscated but also his appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. The contentions of counsel for the petitioner are that since the appeal had been admitted for regular hearing, the appellate Court must have decided the same on merits as the same could not be dismissed for non-prosecution. With these submissions, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded for adjudication in accordance with law.
3. Learned DPG concedes that the appeal should not have been dismissed for non-prosecution as the same was admitted for regular hearing.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution. As argued above, the appeal had already been admitted for regular hearing, it should have been decided on merit and the same could not be dismissed for non-prosecution. It was held in the case of "Muhammad Ashiq Faqir v. The State" (PLD 1970 SC 177) as follows:-- "The absence of the appellant or his pleader, therefore, does not relieve the Court from the duty of perusing record and giving reasons in support of the judgment that there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the conviction and sentence of the appellant."
6. Being fortified by the above view of the Apex Court, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Court dated 11-5-2011, result whereof, would be that the appeal filed by the present petitioner would be deemed to be pending and it shall be decided on merits in accordance with the law before 30-9-2011. H.B.T./M-296/L Petition allowed.