Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAWAB DIN VS Respondent: NAZAR HUSSAIN
1991
1991.P Cr. L J 2321
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
NAWAB DIN---Petitioner
Versus
NAZAR HUSSAIN and another---Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 333 of .1989, heard on 27th April, 1991.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 439---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.323, 406 & 420---Revisional jurisdiction.--During hearing of appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, accused agreed to pay disputed amount and the complainant agreed to withdraw his suit for recovery of arrears of rent against accused--.Complainant received the amount and appeal was accepted with a direction to Civil Court to dismiss the suit as withdrawn on the basis of statement before Additional Sessions' Judge-- Presumption of correctness was attached to proceedings in Court and no counter /affidavit was filed by complainant---Relief in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was of discretionary nature---Complainant had agreed to withdraw the suit-- Exercise of revisional jurisdiction was declined in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sindhu for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing: 27th April, 1991,
JUDGMENT
Nazar Hussain and Diwan Ali respondents were tried under section 406/420/506, P.P.C. on the report of Nawab Din petitioner. On the conclusion of the trial they were convicted under section 406/420/323, P.P.C. and sentenced to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000, in default thereof one year's R.I. each. Feeling aggrieved thereby, they filed appeal which was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. Since in the course of the hearing of the appeal, the respondents/accused agreed to pay the disputed amount of Rs.30,000 to the complainant, so the appeal was accepted with the observation:--
"Today, both the appellants have paid Rs.30,000 in complete satisfaction of his claim. The complainant has undertaken to withdraw the suit for arrears of rent pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Chiniot, so he will get his suit dismissed as withdrawn, as per his own statement made before this Court. If he does not make such statement, the learned trial Court may dismiss the suit on the basis of his statement made here today. The amount of Rs.30,000 having been paid to the complainant, I find that the conviction of the appellants is not justified in view of the absence of mens rea."
2. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have given direction to the Civil Judge with regard to the civil suit of the petitioner pending before him.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. From the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is very much obvious that the complainant/petitioner had given undertaking to the effect that he will withdraw the suit for arrears of rent pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Chiniot and had received Rs.30,000 in the Court. Presumption of correctness is attached to the Court proceedings. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. Furthermore, relief under section 439, Cr.P.C. is of discretionary nature. The petitioner while receiving Rs.30,000 had agreed to withdraw the suit, therefore, I decline to exercise the revisional powers in his aid. Dismissed.
SA./N-454/L Revision dismissed.