SARDAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HANIF and others
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7th October 1984, which accepted the respondents' writ petition. The respondents had been acquitted of charges under Sections 307, 109, 148, 149, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by a Magistrate. The complainant filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for retrial on the ground that the trial was vitiated due to the omission to frame a charge. The Lahore High Court accepted the respondents' writ petition challenging that order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine questions regarding whether an omission to frame a charge alone warrants setting aside an acquittal at the instance of a complainant, whether the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to set aside an acquittal and order retrial under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the High Court judgment should be disturbed.
- Whether by omission to frame a charge, alone the acquittal could have been set aside on the asking of the complainant party?
- Whether the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to set aside acquittal and order retrial under section 439-A, Cr.P.C.?
- Whether the High Court judgment notwithstanding any legal defect should be disturbed?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7th October, 1984 whereby writ petition of the respondents was accepted.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that a case was registered against the respondents under section 307/109/148/149/506, P.P.C., but they were acquitted of the aforesaid charges by Magistrate Section 30, Jhang. Thereupon the petitioner i.e, complainant side brought a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge who arrived at the conclusion that since the trial Court had recorded the evidence without framing any charge against the accused persons, the trial had been vitiated. He, therefore, remanded the case to the Magistrate with the direction that charge be framed and evidence be recorded afresh. The accused party then challenged the aforesaid order by way of writ petition which was accepted as stated above. Hence the present petition by the petitioner complainant. After hearing learned counsel at some length we grant leave in this case to examine the following questions:--
(i) Whether by omission to frame a charge, alone the acquittal could have been set aside on the asking of the complainant party;
(ii) Whether the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to set aside acquittal and order retrial under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. And
(iii) Whether the High Court judgment notwithstanding any legal defect should be disturbed.