EHSAN AHMED and anothers vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioners' writ petitions by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether a Sessions Court, acting as a revisional court under section 439-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, possesses the power to set aside a conviction and remand the case for a re-trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held, following its prior precedent in Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 SC 522), that the proposition raised stands resolved against the petitioners. Consequently, the learned counsel did not press the petition further, and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle reaffirmed is that established binding precedents of the Supreme Court govern points regarding revisional powers of the Sessions Court.
- Does a Sessions Court have the power under section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set aside a conviction and remand the case for re-trial?
- Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFLAL ZULLAH, CI-Leave to appeal has been sought by the accused in a criminal case against the dismissal by the High Court of their Writ Petitions.
2. ' The point raised is very simple; namely, that a Sessions Court, as asserted, has no power under section 439-A of the Criminal Procedure Code as a revisional Court to set aside a conviction and remand the case for re-trial.
3. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel that the question raised by him already stands resolved by this Court in Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 SC 522) and the verdict therein goes against the petitioners; learned counsel frankly stated that he had filed this petition only hesitatingly on the insistence of the petitioners; otherwise he was doubtful about the proposition canvassed therein. Thus he could not press the petitions any further. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.