| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2640 2019 SLD 2640 2019 PLD 418 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Accountability Appeal No. 33 and Criminal RevisionApplications Nos. 95 to 105 of 2001, decision Dated:24-12-2018. Hearing Dated: 10-09-2018.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shahab Sarki, Mushtaque H. Qazi, Ali Asghar Bariro, Merajuddin, Khurram Nizam, Mobeen Lakho, Zulfiqar Ali Langha and Ahmed Raza Shah
Respondent(s) by: Munsif Jan, Special Prosecutor, NAB
Criminal Accountability Appeal No. 33 and Criminal RevisionApplications Nos. 95 to 105 of 2001, decision Dated:24-12-2018. Hearing Dated: 10-09-2018.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shahab Sarki, Mushtaque H. Qazi, Ali Asghar Bariro, Merajuddin, Khurram Nizam, Mobeen Lakho, Zulfiqar Ali Langha and Ahmed Raza Shah
Respondent(s) by: Munsif Jan, Special Prosecutor, NAB
ABDUL SATTAR DERO AND OTHERSVSTHE STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 369,382-B,403,551A
Law: National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)
Section: 9(a)(v).10(a)
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 161,165,409
(a) Appeal--- ----Right of---Powers of appellate court---Scope---Right of appeal is a right of entering into a superior court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress error of court below---Appeal is essentially continuation of original proceedings as a vested right of litigant to avail remedy of an appeal provided for appraisal and testing soundness of a decision and proceedings of court below---Right of appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but it is a substantive right---While considering matters in appeal, appellate court may affirm, modify, reverse or vacate decision of lower court---While deciding appeal, court/judge who heard and decided matter must have full comprehension and command as to what was argued; what was debated upon at time of hearing of matter; and what was understanding of judge or judges while adverting and attending to pleas raised by appellant and defence counsel---Assumption was that evidence led in Trial Court has also been appreciated pertinently by appellate court before passing . [Majority view]. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 369---Appellate jurisdiction---Acquittal by short order---Rehearing---Scope---Accused persons were acquitted of charge by short order passed by Division Bench of High Court---Subsequently, both judges had dissenting findings therefore, Full Bench was constituted to resolve the situation---Validity---Short order signed by both judges could not be altered or reviewed except to make some correction of clerical error and such was not the position---Judiciousness and prudence coming behind restraint embodied under S.369 Cr.P.C. was with sole prominence to preserve and uphold evenness and steadiness so that criminal justice system could continue decorously to its right pathway---If on any ground review of a final was permitted it might envision severe disarray and turmoil which would erode public confidence---Neither any case of rehearing was made out nor Full Bench was court of appeal which could set aside short order or remand matter back---Referee judge in peculiar circumstances declared that short order of acquittal passed by both members of Division Bench of High Court in appeal…
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