P L D 2006 Supreme Court 51 (PLP)
KACHKOL KHAN — Petitioner Versus HAYA KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Supreme Court 51 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | KACHKOL KHAN — Petitioner Versus HAYA KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Supreme Court 51 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Supreme Court 51 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Supreme Court 51 (PLP) (KACHKOL KHAN — Petitioner Versus HAYA KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Hamid Farooq Durrani, A.-G., N.-W.F.P. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 7
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
High Court in exercise of its inherent power under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. had refused to interfere in the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975
Private complainant under the law could not invoke the jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. to avail alternate or substitute remedy for what had been denied by law
Petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. for the purpose of interfering in the acquittal order passed by Special Judge under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, was not maintainable
Impugned order of High Court having been based on law did not suffer from any infirmity
Leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Court accordingly.
S. 561-A
Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts)'Act (XV of 1975), 5.7
Inherent jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. against an order of acquittal passed under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, is not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition arises out of judgment dated March 29, 2000 passed by Peshawar High Court whereby request of the petitioner for interference in the order of acquittal passed by Special Judge, under Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 dated March 9, 1999 exercising inherent powers under section 561-A of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel contended that as under section 7 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 right has not been granted to a complainant to rile appeal against the acquittal order therefore, under section 561-A an acquittal order can be challenged. He has relied upon Faizur Rehman v. The State and others (PLD 2002 Peshawar 6). We have gone through this judgment, Relevant para. there-from is reproduced herein below: "It is well-settled that the inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is not allowed by law in cases where the provisions of law are clear and where the Legislature has not granted the right of appeal to private complainant, recourse cannot be had to the inherent jurisdiction and the Court cannot, contrary to the mandate of Legislature by relying upon its inherent power, grant relief. "
2. Learned Larger Bench of the Peshawar High Court had affirmed above view relying upon the judgments pronounced by this Court from time to time as well as the judgments by the Indian Courts and had categorically held that the private complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., to avail alternate or substitute remedy for what has been denied by law. Thus, the A judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is not helpful to him, therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned High Court has rightly declined to entertain the petition. Petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for the purpose of interfering in the acquittal order passed by Special Judge, under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, was not maintainable. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave declined. N.H.Q./K-38/S Petition dismissed.