Haji Syed RAFT AHMED vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAWALPINDI And Another

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---Leave to appeal has beensought by the complainant side; against the refusal by the High Court in its discretionary Constitutional (writ) jurisdiction to interfere with a very lenient sentence awarded to the convict/respondent for offences under section 406/420,468/471, P.P.C. On his admission of guilt.

2. The petitioner, has argued the case himself. Although on merits his preparation appeared to us to be adequate and he was able to clarify certain points though at one stage he seemed to have made a misstatement; but in so far as the legal position is concerned he remained unable to satisfy us that in its discretionary Writ jurisdiction the High Court could declare lesser sentence by a Criminal Court as without lawful authority and without any legal effect. However,. He did advance an argument worth noticing; namely, that the High Court instead of dealing with the matter on the Writ side should have exercised its suo Motu jurisdiction on the criminal revisional side. Firstly, the exercise of suo Motu jurisdiction cannot be imposed on the High Court by the complainant side in a criminal case. The expression suo Motu implies a considerable discretion and option. In this case obviously the High Court had not exercised its suo Motu jurisdiction with regard to the subject-matter of the grievance mentioned in the Writ Petition. Under Article 199 the High Court, indeed none of its Honourable Judges could have been compelled by a Writ issued by the High Court itself to a Judge to do or not to do an act. Article 199 of the Constitution bars it. Otherwise too when we explained to the petitioner that under the principles codified in the Criminal Procedure Code when an accused person is called upon to show cause why the sentence awarded to him should not be enhanced, he becomes immediately entitled to show cause against the very conviction. A long dispute between the parties having now been settled by the judgment impugned before the High Court, it was not in the interest of the petitioner either to open up the case again in so far as the merits are concerned. Looked at from whatever angle there is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.