DANIYAL M. ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD WASAM KHAN and another
This matter arises from two criminal revision applications filed against orders passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East regarding the custody of a generator under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns whether a criminal court, having once passed an order for the release of case property on superdary, can subsequently review, modify, or recall its own order and pass another conflicting order in the same matter. The court held that a criminal court has no inherent power of review under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that once an order for the disposal of property is passed and finalized, it cannot be subsequently altered or reviewed. The key principle laid down is that orders passed regarding the disposal of case property are final, and subsequent orders reviewing or recalling such earlier decisions without statutory backing are illegal and void.
- Whether a criminal court has the power to review its own order passed under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an order for the release of case property on superdary be recalled or modified after it has been finalized?
- Does passing a subsequent conflicting order regarding the same case property amount to an illegal review of the earlier order?
- Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.---This order will dispose of Criminal Revision Application No,28 of 2012 and Criminal Revision Application No,85 of 2012. The applicant Daniyal Muhammad Aslam, Assistant Manager Finance of Messrs CATCOS (Pvt.) Limited and Muhammad Wassam Khan. Have preferred these Criminal Revision Applications against the order dated 19-12-2011 and 17-1-2012 passed by the learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East on the application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Passed by him.
2. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant Daniyal Muhammad Aslam that R & Ps of the above matter may be called and examined as to the legality, correctness and the propriety of the order and set aside the order dated 17-1-2012 and cancel/recall the order dated 19-12-2011 passed by the learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East. He has further contended that the Applicant-Company purchased the Generator Power Link Stanford 30 KVA Diesel from Messrs Sikandar and Company on 13-5-2008 and subsequently this Generator was sold to Mr. Ali Raza on 18.10-2011, showing his identity as Director of Bukhari Farm Houses, Super Highway for consideration of Rs,4,50,000 through Pay Order of NIB Bank, 42-C, Tauheed Commercial Phase-IV, DHA, Karachi, but the said amount was not deposited in the Applicant- Company and same was found to be fake and bogus as such F.I.R. Was lodged bearing Crime No,780 of 2011 at Police Station Ferozabad, Karachi.
3. ' The applicant submitted an application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Bearing No, 2277/2011 for release of case property on superdary basis. The Court of learned. IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East after hearing the Parties, allowed the application vide order dated 19- 12-2011 released the case property subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,4,00,000.
4. ' The respondent No,1 Muhammad Wassam Khan (Applicant in Criminal Revision Application No,85 of 2012) also filed an application under section 516-A Cr.P.C. Bearing No,2288 of 2011 for release of same Generator on superdary basis. On 17-1-2012 after hearing both the applicants and the learned State Counsel, learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East passed the order by which it recalled the earlier order dated 19-12-2011 and dismissed the application submitted by the respondent No,1 Muhammad Wassam Khan on the main ground that the ownership of the property is not yet decided. Hence, both the applications were dismissed.
5. ' After due consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the above matter, cardinal point, which is involved in this case is once an order on the application is passed can another joint order be passed in the same matter regarding same case property. In my view, this amounts to reviewing its own order, which is violative of law.
6. ' In the case of Fazal Hussain v. The State (1976 PCr.LJ 747) wherein it has been held that:-- "the order passed in favour of the applicant could not be modified as there is no power of review given under the Criminal Procedure Code and the said order had become final."
7. Bare perusal of the dictum laid down reveals that the Court has no power to review its own order given to it under the Cr.P.C. And all the orders regarding disposal of the property except ex parte are final.
8. 'In view of the above dictum laid down, the order passed on 19-12-2011 shall prevail and subsequent order passed with regard to the same property is violative of the law, hence Criminal Revision Application No,28 of 2012 is allowed, and Criminal Revision Application No,85 of 2012 is dismissed.