1990SCMR498 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and others — Petitioners Versus MUNEER AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990SCMR498 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and others — Petitioners Versus MUNEER AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V or 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR498 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V or 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990SCMR498 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR498 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and others — Petitioners Versus MUNEER AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Zafar Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastagir, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, dated 2-11-1988, passed in Criminal Revision No.100 of 1987).
Ss.203, 439-A, 436 & 561-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-- Trial Court dismissed private complaint under S.203, Cr.P.C.
Additional Sessions Judge set aside order in revision under S.439-A, Cr.P.C. and remanded case to make further probe into the matter
Order of remand was challenged before High Court under Ss.439 & 561-A, Cr.P.C.
High Court dismissed petition being incompetent
Contention that High Court under Ss.439, 561-A, Cr.P.C. had wrongly dismissed petition treating it as a second revision and High Court while ignoring S.439-A, Cr.P.C. could have also decided application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
Leave to appeal granted to consider the points in the petition and contention raised by petitioners in support thereof.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Zafar Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastagir, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th July, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 2-11-1988, passed in Criminal Revision No.100 of 1987. The facts in brief are that on 19-4-1987 an F.I.R. was registered at the instance of Javed Akhtar respondent No.4 under section 307/34, P.P.C. read with section 15/20/65, A.O. against Safeer Ahmed, Gul Zamir, Jalil and Hanif. Muneer Ahmed respondent No.l, the real brother of Safeer Ahmed accused filed cross-complaint of the same occurrence regarding the injuries suffered by Safeer Ahmed and Gul Zamir in the Court of Magistrate, Islamabad on 28-4-1987. The learned Magistrate after recording the preliminary evidence dismissed the complaint vide his order dated 24-4-1987. Munir Ahmed respondent No.1 filed revision against the order of the Magistrate before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad under section 439-A, Cr.P.C., who vide his order dated 27-7-1987 accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the Magistrate with direction to make further probe into the matter. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge was challenged in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was dismissed being incompetent vide judgment dated 2-11-1988. The learned counsel in support of this petition argued that the private complaint was dismissed under section 203, Cr.P.C. which was a revisable order under section 436, Cr.P.C. and the Additional Sessions Judge was thus empowered while setting aside the order of the Magistrate and to give him direction to make further probe into the matter as to what offence is made out against the respondents. The learned counsel also contended that the High Court in revision petition under sections 439 and 561-A, Cr.P.C. has wrongly dismissed the same, treating it to be a 2nd revision. The learned High Court while ignoring section 439-A, could have also decided the application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. 1n our opinion the points in this petition and the contention raised by the learned counsel in support thereof, merit consideration of this Court.' Leave to , appeal is granted. Appeal is to be heard in October, 1989 on the present record with liberty to parties to file necessary documents, if any. Proceedings before the Trial Court are stayed till the Final disposal of the appeal. M.A.K./M-1065/S Leave granted.