| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1967 SLG 44 1967 SLD 44 1967 PLD 317 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 29, 30 and 31 of 1966, decision dated: 6th April 1967.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., FAZLEAKBAR AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
M. A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Mujtaba, Attorney for Appellant (in all appeals). Nasim Hasan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Shaukat Ali Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. D. Chowdhury, Attorney (in
Criminal Appeals Nos. 29, 30 and 31 of 1966, decision dated: 6th April 1967.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., FAZLEAKBAR AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
M. A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Mujtaba, Attorney for Appellant (in all appeals). Nasim Hasan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Shaukat Ali Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. D. Chowdhury, Attorney (in
Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1966 GHULAM MUHAMMAD
VS
MUZAMMAL KHAN AND 4 OTHERS Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1966 GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUZAMMAL KHAN AND 3 OTHERS AND Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1966 GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUZAMMAL KHAN AND 5 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3) -Leave to appeal-Granted by Supreme Court to consider whether High Court was right in holding under Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A that abuse of process of Court had taken place, and whether police were not competent to file challans in respect of offences not alleged in First Information Report - Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 254. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 61-Criminal appeal before Supreme Court - Interlocutory orders made by Court directing that a certain sum paid by accused to complainant by way of compromise and withdrawal, of the appeal, involving a non-compoundable offence, be refunded to accused, and that appeal should proceed, appellant being allowed to withdraw his application for withdrawal of appeal-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345(7). (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A, read with Ss. 435, 438 & 439-(Inherent power of High Court)-Not normally to be invoked where another remedy is available-Not intended to vest power to make any order-High Court may "consider to be in interests of justice'-Lapse of long period since initiation of case-No ground for quashing proceedings-Inherent jurisdiction under S. 561-A not an "alternative" or an "additional" jurisdiction-Power preserved "in interest of justice" to redress grievances for which no other procedure is available or is provided by Code-Not to be used to divert ordinary course of criminal procedure-High Court should be extremely reluctant to interfere where change of a prima facie case has been framed on evidence or accused summoned-Conception, that police may not investigate into offence not disclosed by First Information Report, "erroneous "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 190(1)(b) gives power to Magistrates mentioned therein to take cognizance on police report of offences "whether cognizable or non- cognizable"-High Court's order quashing proceedings under 5.561-A set aside-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 155, 127, 196, 197, 198 & 199. It is generally accepted that the inherent jurisdiction should not normally be invoked where another remedy is available. Inherent…
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