Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2382 2002 SLD 2382 2002 PLD 341
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2002, heard on 13th March, 2002
M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J
Mian Muzaffar Ahmad for Petitioner. Ch. Nazir Ahmad for the State

Sahibzada Syed SIKANDAR SHAHEEN

VS

THE STATE and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 247---Non-appearance of complainant---Effect---Apparently in case of non-appearance of the complainant after the issuance of process under S.204, Cr.P.C., it is imperative.upon the Court to acquit the accused, but the provision is not so stringent as it appears to be---Court has discretion and it may adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day despite the non­appearance of the complainant for the reasons which the Court deems appropriate. (b) Penal Code (XVI of 1860) ------ Ss. 302, 392, 324, 337-F(iii), 452, 354, 365/511, 148 & 149---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17--­Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.247 & 439---Complaint dismissed for non-prosecution ---Validity---Complianant had produced his evidence but process had not yet been issued by the Court against the accused---On one date the complainant and his counsel both were absent when the .case was called, but the Court did not consider it appropriate to dismiss the complaint in default---Case was then transferred to the Sessions Court which dismissed the same for non-prosecution by the impugned order---Validity---Not imperative upon the Court to dismiss a complaint before the issuance of process for non-appearance ,.of complainant or his counsel---Complaint contained cross-version of a' case in which the complainant was facing trial in the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997--­Complainant had examined his .witnesses and if he was compelled to file a fresh complaint and examine the witnesses afresh, it would not only expose him to inconvenience but would also protract the proceedings unnecessarily---Impugned order having no legal compulsion, would not advance the cause of justice and thus same was held to be improper in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction---Impugned order was consequently set aside and the case was remitted to the Sessions Court with the direction to proceed in accordance with law---Revision petition was allowed accordingly. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) -------S. 247---Non-appearance of complainant---Ordinarily if it appears to the Court…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492