Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDULLAH SHAIKH VS Respondent: Haji AMIN SHAIKH AND 3 Others
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Mushtaq Ali Kazi Title: ABDULLAH SHAIKH vs Haji AMIN SHAIKH AND 3 Others Case No.: Criminal Revision Application No. 18 of 1977 Date of Judgment:1979-09-11 Reported As: 1979 P Cr. L J 753 Result: accordingly set aside
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, J.---This is a revision application under section 439 read with section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Against an order by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi directing quashment of the proceedings of a criminal case. Ordinarily the powers of the Sessions Court and the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction are concurrent and if the powers are exercised by the Sessions Judge then the High Court is not supposed to entertain a second revision application ; but in the present case it would appear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge quashed the proceedings of a pending criminal case as in his opinion the complaint had been brought for the purpose of harassm ent and the proceedings) amounted to abuse of the process of Court. It has rightly been pointed out by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the powers to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice are the inherent powers of the .High Court and these powers dot not vest in the Additional Sessions Judge in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The very words used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge show that he has assumed the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A and quashed the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of Court. These orders being illegal and without jurisdiction would be deemed to be a nullity in the eye of law. Under these circumstances the proceedings directed to be quashed are restored and the order of Additional Sessions Judge is accordingly set aside. It would, however, be open to the respondent to move the High Court for quashment of the proceedings if in his opinion there are sufficient grounds for doing so. Proceedings restored.