Appeal and revision

2022 MLD 1914 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.23 & 7Issue of enforcement order and penaltiesAppeal and revisionScope

Appellant assailed order passed by the PTA (Pakistan Telecommunication Authority) whereby a fine of Rs.1 million was imposed on it for providing incorrect data

Contention of appellant, inter alia, was that it had not contravened any of the terms and conditions of its license, the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 or rules made thereunder

Validity

Held, it was ludicrous to assert that PTA was bereft of the power to impose a fine on a licensee for not providing authentic, correct and complete information to PTA unless the licensee had been given an opportunity to remedy the contravention

Such an interpretation of S.23(3) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, would be an open license to the licensees to provide unauthentic, incorrect and incomplete information to PTA with impunity, and hope for such contravention to never be detected

Such an interpretation would also render S. 23(3)(b) redundant which empowered PTA to impose a fine on a licensee where a licensee was unable to satisfy PTA as to the contravention of rules or a term or condition of a license

Appeal was dismissed.

2020 MLD 207 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25, 15 & 32Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 265-K & 369Power of court to acquit accused at any stageCourt not to alter judgmentVoluntary return and plea bargainDisqualification to contest elections or to hold public officeAppeal and revisionScope

Applicant, during his arrest, had filed a plea bargain application which was accepted by the Chairman, NAB and subsequently approved by the Accountability Court in terms of S. 25(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Accused was convicted under Ss.15(a) & 15(b), National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Five co-accused persons filed application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. which was allowed and they were acquitted of the charges

Applicant taking advantage of the said order filed application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. before the Accountability Court, which was dismissed

Applicant had moved application under S. 25(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for plea bargain, the said application was duly signed by him in which he admitted that he was ready to return the liable amount which stood against him

Trial Court had accepted the offer for the payment in certain condition and after payment, the applicant was released from jail

Applicant had not filed appeal

Applicant was planning officer and the application was handwritten which was drafted and duly signed by him

No court including High Court, when it had signed its judgment/order could alter or review its own judgment/order except to correct a clerical error

Applicant was convicted on 08.02.2005 and he had filed application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court on 09.02.2018 with a delay of 13 years

Applicant was in full knowledge about filing of the plea bargain application under S. 25 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 but even then he remained silent and did not challenge the said order before the Trial Court or even before High Court, though such a remedy was available to him under S. 32 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Applicant had failed to explain the delay in filing the application before the Trial Court

Revision application was dismissed.

2019 CLC 2057 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Appeal/revision was continuation of suit.

2019 PTD 301 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25-A & 25-DAppeal and revisionDistinction

Whole of controversy, in entirety of factual and legal issues involved is open before appellate authority in first appeal

Appellate authority can, if so deems appropriate, substitute its own decision for that of forum whose decision is being appealed against

Revision does not operate in such broad terms and it is confined to considering decision under challenge within a more restricted scope.

2014 MLD 574 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 151, 96, & 115Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Appeal and revisionInherent powers of High Court

High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, could convert an appeal, constitutional petition or revision to any other remedy.

2013 CLD 981 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 151, 96, & 115Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Appeal and revisionInherent powers of High Court

High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, could convert an appeal, constitutional petition or revision to any other remedy.