P L D 1992 Supreme Court 251 (PLP)
Haji Syed RAFT AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
| Citation | P L D 1992 Supreme Court 251 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah,CJ. |
| Parties | Haji Syed RAFT AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1992 Supreme Court 251 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1992 Supreme Court 251 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah,CJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1992 Supreme Court 251 (PLP) (Haji Syed RAFT AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.435 & 439
Expression "suo Motu" implies a considerable discretion and option
Exercise of suo Motu revisional jurisdiction cannot be imposed on the High Court by the complainant in a criminal case.
Expression "suo Motu" implies a considerable discretion and option.
Art.199
High Court, indeed none of its Judges could be compelled by writ issued by the High Court itself to a Judge to do or not to do an act as Art.199 bars it.
Ss.435 & 439
When an accused person is called upon to show cause as to why the sentence awarded to him should not be enhanced he becomes immediately entitled to show cause against the very conviction.
[Sentence].
Art.185(3)
Long dispute between the parties had now been settled by the judgment impugned before the High Court and it was not in the interest of petitioners either to open up the case again in so far as the merits were concerned
Looked from whatever angle there was no force in the petition
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.
Leave to appeal has been sought by the complainant side; against the refusal by the High Court in its discretionary Constitutional (writ) jurisdiction to interfere with a very lenient sentence awarded to the convict/respondent for offences under section 406/420,468/471, P.P.C. on his admission of guilt. The petitioner, has argued the case himself. Although on merits his preparation appeared to us to be adequate and he was able to clarify certain points though at one stage he seemed to have made a misstatement; but in so far as the legal position is concerned he remained unable to satisfy us that in its discretionary Writ jurisdiction the High Court could declare lesser sentence by a Criminal Court as without lawful authority and without any legal effect. However,. he did advance an argument worth noticing; namely, that the High Court instead of dealing with the matter on the Writ side should have exercised its suo Motu jurisdiction on the criminal revisional side. Firstly, the exercise of suo Motu jurisdiction cannot be imposed on the High Court by the complainant side in a criminal case. The expression suo Motu implies a considerable discretion and option. In this case obviously the High Court had not exercised its suo Motu jurisdiction with regard to the subject-matter of the grievance mentioned in the Writ Petition. Under Article 199 the High Court, indeed none of its Honourable Judges could have been compelled by a Writ issued by the High Court itself to a Judge to do or not to do an act. Article 199 of the Constitution bars it. Otherwise too when we explained to the petitioner that under the principles codified in the Criminal Procedure Code when an accused person is called upon to show cause why the sentence awarded to him should not be enhanced, he becomes immediately entitled to show cause against the very conviction. A long dispute between the parties having now been settled by the judgment impugned before the High Court, it was not in the interest of the petitioner either to open up the case again in so far as the merits are concerned. Looked at from whatever angle there is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.B.A./R-191/S Leave refused.