Law:

Section:

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 15th January 1970, in Criminal Hal Revision No. 36 of 1969).   Criminal trial-Revision-Limitation-No definite period of limitation prescribed by East Pakistan High Court for filing revision petitions-Sind Chief Court Rules in matter could not be invoked-Revision applications, as a matter of practice not enter tained if filed beyond period prescribed for filing appeals-Court, in suitable cases, however, empowered to entertain revision applications even beyond such time. Date of hearing : 18th June 1970. JUDGMENT HAMOODURRAHMAN, C. J. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner on 15-7-66 under sections 416. and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Disbursing Officer, Compensation Office, Noakhali. The allegation against him was that he had practiced a fraud upon the complainant by forging the signature of a member of a Union Council on a mutation petition and bill- cum-acquittance roll in respect of certain compensation standing in the name of one, Raj Mohan Majumder, and drawn the said compensation by identifying an unknown person as the heir of the said Raj Mohan Majumder. Warrant of arrest was issued on the basis of this complaint and the trial proceeded, but it dragged on till the 28th February 1968, when only two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They denied that they had any knowledge about the alleged incident. Then on the 29th March 1968, another witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution. He too pleaded ignorance about the incident. The next date of hearing was the 20th of April 1968. On this date the complainant was absent without any petition for adjournment. So no further date was given and the accused was discharged under section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ' Some six months later on the 10th of October 1968, the District Magistrate of Noakhali was moved in revision for setting aside the order of discharge. He set aside the order on the 10th of December 1968, and directed further enquiry. The petitioner moved the High Court on its revisional side but a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the…