IKRAMULLAH and others vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court whereby a criminal appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the petitioners under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was accepted. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's interference with an order of acquittal and the handling of limitation issues regarding the appeal filed against said acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in passing the impugned order as the Magistrate had not properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in him, justifying appellate interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal declined, laying down that appellate courts may intervene where a trial magistrate fails to exercise jurisdiction properly in an acquittal matter.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with an order of acquittal passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an appellate court properly assume jurisdiction when an acquittal order is challenged after intermediate proceedings?
- Is leave to appeal against an acquittal order justified when the trial magistrate fails to properly exercise jurisdiction?
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---Leave to appeal is sought againstthe order, dated 6-4-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted Criminal Appeal No, 70 'of 1997 filed by the complainant assailing acquittal of the petitioners.
2, The facts of the case are, that respondent No,2 got a case registered against the petitioners alleging that they illegally trespassed into the land of the complainant, destroyed the crops and damaged the trees. After investigation of the crime the challan was submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Phalia who acquitted the present petitioners under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 14-3-1995.
3. The order of acquittal was assailed through revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin which remained pending for a period of two years and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The complainant then filed criminal appeal before the Lahore High Court in which an application for condonation of delay under sections 5/14 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act" was moved. Notice was issued by the High Court who finally accepted the appeal through the impugned order, dated 6-4-2001.
4. We have heard Sh. Naveed Shahryar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners who vehemently contended that the appeal before the High Court was time-barred and the High Court without condoning the delay accepted the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the F.I.R. Was registered in the year 1991 and the petitioners were acquitted in 1995 after facing the agony of protracted trial.
5. We have considered all aspects of the case and find that the High Court was perfectly correct in passing the impugned order. We have also noticed that the Magistrate has not properly exercised jurisdiction vested in him and that is why the High Court was persuaded to interfere with the said order which on the face of it was not justified. Although no specific finding has been given about the limitation by the High Court yet an application under the Act was pressed into service.
6. We, therefore, in the interest of justice are not inclined to interfere, hence this petition is dismissed and leave declined.