| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLG 4069 1996 SLD 4069 , 1996 PLD 388 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1427 of 1993, decided on 12th May, 1996.
Presented By: Before Ali Muhammad Baloch, J
M. Ilyas Khan for Applicant. A.Q. Halepota: Amicus curiae. Syed Amjad Ali Shah, A.A.-G.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1427 of 1993, decided on 12th May, 1996.
Presented By: Before Ali Muhammad Baloch, J
M. Ilyas Khan for Applicant. A.Q. Halepota: Amicus curiae. Syed Amjad Ali Shah, A.A.-G.
J.M. HAYAT QURESHI --- Applicant
VERSUS
THE STATE --- Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 561
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 561-A --- Inherent powers of High Court --- Expunging of remarks --- High Court can in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by, a lower Court if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends 6f justice. --[Expunction of remarks). State of Uttar Pradesh v. Muhammad Naeem AIR 1964 SC 703 ref. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- S. 561-A-Inherent jurisdiction of High Court --- Expunging of observations not amounting to review of the judgment --- High Court has power to reconsider and expunge the observations damaging to any person and it does not amount to review of the criminal judgment. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 657 ref. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 561-A --- Expunging of remarks --- Adverse remarks had been passed by High Court against the applicant Advocate when he, while appearing on behalf of the Advocate-General in a bail application, had raised no objection to the grant of bail to the accused therein --- Record not showing that applicant was called upon to elaborate and explain the reasons for his not objecting to bail application of accused and still he failed to do so --- Orders were passed later on in the chambers and the case of applicant was that-he learnt thereafter that he was required to give his reasons for his no objection --- Prosecution under the circumstances had no objection if the remarks damaging to the applicant were expunged from the order--- Adverse remarks passed in the said order against the applicant were expunged accordingly. --[Expunction of remarks]. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Muhammad Naeern AIR 1964 SC 703 and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 657 ref. M. Ilyas Khan for Applicant. A.Q. Halepota: Amicus curiae. Syed Amjad Ali Shah, A.A.-G. ORDER This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Application invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. requesting for expunging the remarks passed by this Court while deciding the Criminal Bail Application No.927 of 1993. The petitioner Mr. Muhammad Hayat Qureshi was appearing on behalf…