ABDUL RASHEED Versus SHARIF

ORDER

1. This revision application challenging an order of acquittal, was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15-9-1992 under the order reproduced below:--

2. "Learned counsel for applicant remains absent for want of instructions. He further states that applicant had taken away brief from him about 8 months back and thereafter, he has not contacted him. Mr. Abdul Lateef Ansari, the learned A.A. -G. supports the impugned judgment. In this view of the matter Cr.R.A. No.43 of 1990 is dismissed for non prosecution. "

3. Said order is sought to be recalled under the present application. Mr. Nisar Hussain Zaidi learned counsel for the applicant argued that once a criminal revision application was admitted for hearing the same could not be dismissed for non-prosecution. In support he cited the cases of:--

(i) Abdullah v. Din Muhammad and others PLD 1976 Kar. 1184,

(ii) Nisar Ahmed v. State and another 1975 PCr.LJ 400,

(iii) Muhammad Hanif v. State 1991 PCr.LJ 1353, any'

(iv) Haji Sattar Muhammad v. Muhammad Aslam and others 1990 PCr.LJ 1286.

4. Learned A.A.-G. opposed and argued that a revision application even if admitted, can be dismissed for non-prosecution. In support he cited the case of Maulvi Asad Ahmad alias Asad and 17 others v, The State and another PLD 1990 Lah. 1.

5. In the case of Abdullah PLD 1976 Kar. 1184 a learned Single Judge of this Court took view that there was no express provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for dismissal of revision petition for non-prosecution but there is nothing to suggest that such an order cannot be passed when the party who filed the petition fails to prosecute his remedy and the party and the counsel remain absent on the date of hearing of the petition. In the same case it was observed that since the Court can under certain circumstances dismiss a petition without considering the same on merits, hence for sufficient reasons shown the Court is also empowered to rescind such orders if a case is subsequently made out for rehearing the petition for adjudication on merits to secure the ends of justice. This authority does not support the point raised on behalf of the applicant that a revision can under no circumstances be dismissed for non prosecution. In the case of Nisar Ahmed 1975 PCr.LJ 400 a Division Bench of Lahore High Court held that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was quite different from the appellate jurisdiction because any person can bring to the notice of the High Court an illegality or material irregularity in the conduct of judicial proceedings and the High Court can in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction set it right. In the case of Muhammad Hanif 1991 PCr.LJ 1353 a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court proceeded with a revision in absence of the applicant who filed it, on the ground that since the revision was admitted, it cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. No grounds were given for such view, which was expressed by way of an obiter dicta. In the case of Haji Sattar Muhammad 1990 PCr.LJ 1286 the revision petition was presented by the petitioner while he was alive and in his lifetime it was registered and process was issued to the other side. Subsequently the petitioner died. In the circumstances a learned Division Bench of Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed that once the Court issues process, it is enjoined upon it to dispose of the revision petition on merits. The revision was filed in the cited case by the petitioner in his lifetime which was registered and process was issued to the respondents. In said case the question was whether a revision application automatically abated on death of the petitioner. No such point has arisen in the present case.

6. In the case of Maulvi Asad Ahmed PLD 1990 Lah. I the view taken was that a revisional Court is exercising the same powers as are conferred on a Court of appeal by sections 423 and 426 of Cr.P.C. and that a revision petition could be dismissed in default of appearance. For taking such view learned Judge of the Lahore High Court followed the case of Abdullah PLD 1976 Kar. 1184. Learned A.A.-G. also pointed out that the applicant had not pursued the matter properly. In view of the observations made in the cases of Abdullah and Maulvi Asad, I would hold that a criminal revision petition can be dismissed for non prosecution, more particularly in a case of this nature, where the Advocate made statement that eight months back his client took away the brief and thereafter did not contact him. It may be appreciated that the revision application was dismissed on 15-9-1992 and M.A. 175 of 1993 for its restoration was moved on 9-3-1993. Learned counsel has no explanation for such lethargy on part of the applicant.

7. For the foregoing reasons this revision application stands dismissed.

8. N.H.Q./A-1569/K Petition dismissed.