Criminal Revision

Non-bailable warrants were issued against accused and surety bond of the petitioner was forfeited and notice to the surety was issued under S.514, Cr.P.C. which notice was repeated for a number of times

Assistant Sessions Judge ordered that the entire bond amount be imposed upon surety as penalty

Said order was challenged in appeal and Appellate Court taking lenient view reduced amount of penalty from Rs.100,000 to Rs.50,000

Accused had remained absconder for 5 years

Appellate Court had already shown leniency and reduced amount of penalty

No further indulgence by High Court was called for, in circumstances.

Sessions Court while disposing of pre-arrest bail application of accused had made certain observations in respect of improper and illegal investigation made by the Investigating Officer, present petitioner, in the case and directed the CPO for taking action against him in accordance with law

Validity

Court while disposing of any Criminal matter was primarily duty bound to see if the investigation in the case had been conducted properly and in accordance with law, and to point out any illegality if found therein

Such powers are always inherently provided to the court under the Statutes in which the proceedings were being conducted

No illegality had been committed by the Sessions Court in making the adverse observations against the petitioner Investigating Officer and directing initiation of action against him according to law

Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.

Principles.

Criminal revision application had been directed against judgment passed by Judge Banking Court in criminal complaint under S.20 Finances) the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Ordinance, 2001, whereby respondents/accused were acquitted

Applicant had failed to file appeal against impugned order as provided under S. 22 of the Ordinance

Under subsection (6) of S.22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, interim/ interlocutory order, which did not decide the entire case, no appeal, review or revision would lie nor against an order accepting or rejecting an application for leave to defend or any interlocutory order of the Banking Court

Whereas per subsection (1) of S.22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, against the final order the appeal would be filed within 30 days

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was a special statute and the period of limitation for appeal had not been prescribed in the Ordinance, and in circumstances provisions of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 would not apply but if revision would be converted into an appeal same would be hit by limitation

Even otherwise, in presence of clear provisions of S.22 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, revision could not be converted into constitutional petition

Same, in circumstances was not maintainable

Criminal revision application being not maintainable, was-dismissed.

Trial Magistrate, after acquitting the accused in the case, had straightaway imposed upon the complainant compensation of Rs.25,000 payable to accused, to be recovered as arrears of land revenue

No separate order had been passed in this regard except issuance of a Robkar to the Tehsildar for the recovery of the said compensation

Although complainant had replied the notice, yet the Magistrate without considering his contentions and without giving any reasons to refute his version, had passed the impugned order

Magistrate was required under the law to determine the liability of the complainant by a separate specific order, which aspect of the matter had even been ignored by Sessions Court, while dismissing the appeal of the complainant

Impugned orders were consequently set aside being not tenable in the eyes of law and the case was remitted to the trial Magistrate to pass a fresh order after considering the reply filed by the complainant petitioner in response to show-cause notice

Revision petition was allowed accordingly.