SHAHID ABBAS vs THE STATE and another
This criminal revision petition arose out of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, rejecting the petitioner's application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, along with co-accused, had been summoned in a private complaint involving offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Police Order 2002. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that deciding an application under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. after summoning the accused would amount to impermissibly reviewing or recalling its own earlier summoning order. The core legal question was whether a trial court can entertain and decide an application under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. after having issued a summoning order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a summoning order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is not a judgment and can be reviewed, recalled, or revisited at any stage. Consequently, the trial court was directed to decide the Section 265-K Cr.P.C. application on its merits.
- Is a summoning order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in the nature of a final judgment that cannot be reviewed or recalled?
- Can a trial court entertain and decide an application under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. after having summoned the accused?
- Does deciding a Section 265-K Cr.P.C. application amount to an illegal review of a prior summoning order?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 155-C, Police Order 2002
- Article 155-D, Police Order 2002
- Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.-The petitioner and his eleven co-accused had been summoned to face trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pakpattan Sharif in a private complainant under sections 148, 201, 302, 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F-(ii), 337-F(v), 337-L2, 382, 149, P.P.C. And Articles 155-C, 155-D Police Order 2002.
2. In response to the summoning order the petitioner appeared before the learned trial Court and moved an application under section 265-K .Cr.P.C. Seeking his acquittal from the charge. On- 19-2- 2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge turned down his application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. On the ground that after the appearance of the petitioner no progress had been made in the case, therefore, passing any order on application under section 265-K Cr:P.C. Would amount to recalling his earlier order whereby, he had summoned the accused. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge "this was not permissible in the eyes of law".
3. I have heard the learned counsel civil Revision No 252 of 2006, heard on for the parties.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant candidly conceded that the impugned order to this extent is not sustainable. It is well-settled now that summoning order under section 204 Cr.P.C. Is not in the nature of a judgment and can be reviewed, recalled or revisited at any stage of the proceedings. In this connection reference may profitably be made to the case of Mst.
Shabbana Naz Butt v. Mst. Hukam Jan and others (2000 SCMR 1480), Muhammad Ramzan v.
Muhammad Azim and 9 others (1991 MLD 951), Muhammad Tufail alias .Muhammad Yasin v.
Muhammad Suleman and 6 others (PLD 1995 Lahore 293), Yasin Khan Baber v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1424), Muhammad Anwar v. Mst. Shagufta Ahmad (2004 PCr.LJ) 1071.
5. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19-9-2007 is hereby set aside.
Application of the petitioner under section 265-K Cr.P.C. Shall be deemed to be pending before the learned trial Court which, shall be dealt with arid decided on merits. There will be no order as to costs.