KAMAL DIN Versus THE STATE

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner was convicted under sections 468 and 471, P. P. C. and sentenced to one year's R. 1. on each count. He was also convicted under sections 406/420, P. P. C. and sentenced to six months' R. 1. on each count. However, the sentences for all these offences were to run concurrently. The appeal of the petitioner before an Additional Sessions Judge at Sargodha having failed and his revision before the High Court also having been dismissed, he has now moved this Court for leave to appeal.

2. After hearing Sh. Masood Akhtar, the learned Advocate-on-Record we feel that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

3. However, we do not approve of the summary manner in which the High Court disposed of the revision filed by the petitioner. The view of that learned Judge that the Courts below having concurrently found against the, petitioner the High Court in these circumstances could interfere only if any illegality or irregularity in the mode of trial had occurred is too narrow a view of its scope, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, because they propriety of the order has also to be examined by it.

4. Normally, even in a revision petition, a more detailed judgment would" be necessary to enable this Court to appreciate why the High Court has be-E; persuaded to concur with the decision of the Court below that the conviction of the petitioner on the facts found to be established is sustainable in lave and is otherwise proper. Indeed, any order passed by a Court which can) `be challenged before a higher forum is expected to give an outline of the case, however brief, alongwith the ground or grounds for the view which has found favour with it.

5. This petition stands disposed of with these observations.

6. S. A. H. Petition disposed of accordingly.