Case Details

Citation(s)
1979 SLG 84 1979 SLD 84 1979 PLD 17
Sindh High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 253 of 1978, decided on 6th August 1978. Date of hearing: 23rd May 1978.
MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, J
Aftab Ahmed Akhund for Petitioner. R. A. Qureshi for the State.

KHUDA BUX AND 9 OTHHERS ers

VS

THE STATE Opponent

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 561 A Quashment of proceedings Exercise of inherent powers¬--Circumstances of each case must be examined with care to determine whether judicial proceeding really intended to secure ends of justice or an abuse of process of Court Mere delay cannot be regarded as a ground for quashment of proceedings Inherent powers preserved to meet lacunae in Cr. P. C. in extraordinary cases. [Inherent powers-¬Delay]. In the instant case, the question for consideration was whether the delay caused on account of actions of Government officials could be regarded as basis for exercise of inherent powers by the High Court for consideration of such delay to be abuse of the process of Curt. The circumstances of each case in which the inherent powers of the High Court are invoked must be examined with care to determine whether the judicial proceeding is really intended to secure the ends of justice or is an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court must come to a finding that the proceedings if permitted to continue would defeat the ends of justice or in other words would either operate or perpetuate an injustice. To find an abuse, it would be necessary to see in the proceedings, a perversion of the purpose of the law, such as to cause harassment to an innocent party, to bring about delay, or where the machinery of justice is engaged in an opera¬tion from which no result in furtherance of justice can accrue. For instance, where the defence was prejudiced by the delay, or where the petitioner could not be blamed for such delay then those circumstances could be considered as being weighty to support the quashment. Each case must, however, rest on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Mere delay could not be regarded as a ground for quashment, unless the Court could come to a definite finding after careful examination of the case, that continuance of the proceedings would not secure the ends of justice but would on the contrary defeat the ends of justice. The High Court should be extremely reluctant to interfere in a case where a competent Court has, after examining the evidence produced before it, come to the view that a prima facie…
🔒
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