DIN MUHAMMAD AND Another vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE ETC.S
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dismissing a constitutional petition concerning the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the validity of successive orders passed by revenue and administrative authorities regarding bail under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since challan had been submitted and the Deputy Commissioner had taken cognizance of the case, the petitioners were at liberty to apply afresh for bail before the competent authority or the President of the Tribunal under section 17 of the Ordinance. The Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition, establishing that accused persons should seek fresh recourse for bail before the trial forum when challan has been submitted.
- Can an accused person apply afresh for bail under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 after challan has been submitted and cognizance taken?
- Whether the Board of Revenue has revisional jurisdiction under section 24 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968?
- Is an appellate order passed under section 23 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 sustainable if passed without providing an opportunity of being heard to the complainant?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 23, Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968
- Section 24, Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968
- Section 17, Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is a petition for special leave from the judg--ment and order dated 30th of April, 1979, made by a Division Bench of the High Court of Baluchistan at Quetta in dismissing a Constitutional petition filed by the present petitioners against the respondents herein.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the two petitioners are accused in a case under section 307/34, P. P. C. Registered at Police Station Turbat, Baluchistan, on the 21st March, 1976. Afterwards, on the 20th of May, 1976, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Turbat, allowed bail to the two petitioners in the case. But the order was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner on the 5th of June 1976, who ordered the arrest of the accused. Dissatisfied, the petitioner then went up in appeal under section 23 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968, accepted by the Commissioner Kalat Division, on the 21st of June, 1976. He reversed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and restored that of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, on the ground that the later had- passed the same in exercise of powers of the Deputy Commissioner 'delegated to him and therefore, the former could not sit in review against it. On this Muhammad Ibrahim, respondent No. 3, one of the injured filed a revision to the Board of Revenue Baluchistan under section 24 of the Ordinance. On the 27th of May, 1977, learned- Member Board of Revenue, accepted the revision on the ground that the learned Commissioner had no lawful authority to have reversed the order without giving the complainant side an opportunity of being heard in accordance with the provisions contained in section 23(2) of the Ordinance.
3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from the orders mentioned above, passed in this case that none of the higher authorities have decided the case of the petitioners in accordance with la for their release on bail. We find that after the necessary investigation into this case the challan was put in the Court of the Deputy Commis--sioner who took cognizance of the case on 31st of May, 1976, and it is still open to the petitioners to apply afresh to him or the President of the Tribunal, according as the case may be under section 17 of the Ordinance for their release on bail to be disposed of in accordance with the law. We have therefore, declined to entertain this petition and find that in the circumstances it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in these proceedings. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.