HASSAN-UR-REHMAN vs HALEEM SHAH and anothers
This criminal appeal arose out of a petition challenging an order passed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a High Court can pass an order prejudicial to an accused person, who had been released under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without giving him prior notice and an opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was denied the mandatory notice required by law prior to the passing of the adverse order. With the State counsel conceding the legal flaw, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's failure to serve notice rendered the impugned order unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh hearing of the revision petition after providing a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
- Can the High Court pass an order in revision to the prejudice of an accused without giving him notice under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an order passed in criminal revision without hearing the affected person sustainable in law?
- Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---The only contentions raised by Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner having been earlier released under section 169, Cr.P.C., the impugned order passed by the High Court without notice to the petitioner, as required by subsection (2) of section 439, Cr.P.C., was not sustainable in law and hence the case be remanded to the learned High Court for hearing it afresh after notice to the petitioner.
2. Mr. Hassan Inamullah, learned counsel for Respondent No,2, states that in view of the legal position he is unable to support impugned order of the High Court and has no objection if the case is remanded to the High Court.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, indeed, valid and the learned State counsel having rightly conceded to it, this petition is converted into an appeal and the impugned order passed by the learned High Court is set aside, and the case is remanded to the learned High Court for hearing the Revision afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- Noman Mansoor alias Nomi and others vs The State and others 2024 SCP 194, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 805