| Case ID |
03fedd39-ac20-4028-823e-570f3ab459a1 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Revision Application No. 130 of 2004 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 03, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The High Court, while maintaining its previous order, recalled and altered it to set aside the imposition of a fine by the Sessions Court, which was deemed unjustified. The inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code were exercised to correct manifest errors without involving a lengthy legal process. The decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that judicial orders do not perpetuate injustice and emphasized the High Court's role in rectifying errors in previous judgments. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a Criminal Revision Application filed under the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). The applicant, Muhammad Nafees alias Sohail, contested an order from the Sessions Court that imposed a hefty fine while rejecting his petition filed under Section 22-A. The Sindh High Court examined the arguments presented by various lawyers representing both the applicant and the respondents. The case underscored the High Court's inherent powers to rectify errors in judicial orders, ensuring that no injustice persists due to procedural oversights. Ultimately, the court upheld the principle that judicial decisions should be just and fair, setting a precedent for future cases regarding the limitations of judicial authority in imposing fines. This ruling emphasizes the necessity of transparent legal processes and the protection of individual rights against arbitrary decisions. Keywords include 'Criminal Procedure Code', 'High Court powers', 'judicial review', and 'legal representation'. These are critical for understanding the nuances of this case and its implications on criminal law. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J
|
| Lawyers |
I.A. Usmani for the Applicant,
Abdul Jabbar Lakho Asstt. A.G.,
Noemot Ali Randhawa for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5,
Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed for Respondent No. 6
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD NAFEES alias SOHAIL
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE,
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5,
Respondent No. 6
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 1809,
2005 PLD 638
|
| Other Citations |
Fateh Ali and another v. The State 1997 MLD 2235,
Hussain Ahmed v. Mst. Irshad Bibi and others 1997 SCMR 1503,
Mukhtar Ahmed alias Mokha and another v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1905,
Chairman, Minimum Wages Board, Peshawar and another v. Fayyaz Khan Khattak, Research Officer, Minimum Wages Board, Peshawar 1999 SCMR 2768,
Allah Rakha v. The State 2000 MLD 1932,
Haji Muhammad Abbas v. Mrs. Naila Tranum Jamshed and 4 others 2001 PCr.LJ 628,
Faizur Rehman v. The State and others PLD 2002 Peshawar 6,
Mian Khan and others v. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab and others PLD 2002 Lah. 619,
Muhammad Yousuf v. Dr. Madad Ali alias Gulab Lashani and others PLD 2002 Kar.328,
Ghulam Ali alias Sadoro and others v. S.H.O. Police Station Veehar, District Larkana 2003 YLR 2168,
Peer Abdul Qayyum Shah v. S.H.O. and others 2005 PCr.LJ 357,
Bashir Ahmed v. Zafar-ul-Islam PLD 2004 SC 298,
Muhammad Ayaz alias Cheena and others v. The State PLD 2004 Kar.652,
Maktul v. Mst. Manbhari AIR 1958 SC 918
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
561A,
439,
22A
|