Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 435 , 439 , 10

Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 436

Law: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, (XX of 1965)

Section: 169

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ---- Ss. 435 & 439 --- Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), S. 10 --- Revisional powers of High Court not taken away by Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act" [975 ---Revisional Authority of High Court embodied in Ss.435 & 439, Cr.P.C. has not been taken away by Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 . Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ---- Art. 203 --- High Court can correct unlawful order --- High Court in exercise of its powers of superintendence and control conferred by Art .203 of the Constitution is competent to correct any order passed by the subordinate Courts in violation of law. Shahzad Hussain and another v. The State PLD 1980 Lah. 58 and Habib Bank Limited v. The State and others 1993 SCMR 1853 ref. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- Ss. 435, 436 & 439 --- Revisional jurisdiction of High Court --- Locus standi to invoke the same --- Not always necessary that only an aggrieved person can invoke the revisional jurisdiction of High Court --- Any person can move the High Court under Ss.435, 436 and 439, Cr.P.C. on its revisional side. Qazi Fazlullah and others v. The State and another PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar. 105 ref. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 169 --- Provision of S.169, Cr.P.C. is not attracted after submission of challan. West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)--- ---- S. 13-D ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 8s. 169 & 439 --- Trial Court after submission of challan by the police immediately took cognizance of the case   ---Subsequent to that there was no scope for entertaining a report under S. 169, Cr. P.C. and there was no provision of law for allowing the same at that stage --- instead of deciding the case on merits Trial Court passed the impugned order releasing the accused under S. 169, Cr.P.C. on the report of prosecution --- Said order of Trial Court was not only in direct conflict with its earlier order and amounted to its review, but was also misconceived and unwarranted by law and the same was consequently set aside with the direction to Trial Court to proceed…