' G. M. SHAH, J.-This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Is directed against the judgment of Z. A. Channa, J. Praying for re-hearing and restoration of the two applications on the ground that the learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh was busy in other matters and could not appear and argue the two applications. It is therefore contended that non- appearance of the learned counsel and the applicant, was not a wilful default on their part, therefore it would be fit and proper to restore the applications. Similar arguments were advanced in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 971/76 in which also the learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, as well as, the applicant, were called absent and the application was heard and disposed of on merits by Z. A. Channa, J. After hearing the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, the application for restoration was dismissed. It is needless to go to the narration of the facts of this case, since they are fully reproduced in the impugned judgment.
2. The main ground that has been advanced by the learned counsel is that the judgment was passed in his absence and that of the applicant, which had prejudiced the case of the applicant, consequently the applications be restored in the interest of justice.
3. The impugned judgment was passed on perusal of the respective applications filed. The learned State Counsel Mr. Ghulam Ali Agha had assisted the Court, to go through the record and the documents. Likewise Syed Safdar Hussain Advocate, for respondents Nos, 5 to 16 had also fully contributed, towards assisting the Court, in passing this judgment, wherein the facts and law have been discussed and considered whereafter the impugned judgment was passed. We are not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh. The learned State counsel has opposed the application.
4. We may point out here that general principle of finality of judgment is attached to the decision or order of the High Court, passed in criminal cases. We are conscious of the fact that this finality of judgment, will not apply to cases, where an order is passed without jurisdiction or without giving any opportunity to the parties of being heard. It is true that in such cases, section 561-A, Cr. P. C.
Can be invoked, for the purposes of doing justice, between the parties and further seeing that the act of the Court, does not result in miscarriage of justice. Under section 561-A, Cr. P. C., it is an inherent power of the High Court, which has been preserved in this provision of law. This power is exerciseable in rare and exceptional cases, to invoke, review or alter its own earlier decision, in cases, which are not governed by sections 369, 424 and 430, Cr. P. C. In order to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
5. In the case of Sultan Mehmood (1), it ;was observed that, "in view of the clear terms of section 561-A of Cr. P. C., the mere institution of the appeal, cannot limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court, to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order, under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
6. In yet another case of Hadi Bux (2), paragraph 25 at page 750 reads as under :- "While pointing out that re-hearing of the same matter by the High Court, would result in conscious violation of the universally recognised principle that, "it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation," his Lordship observed as follows :- "In view of the finality attaching to judgments of the High Court, pronounced on the criminal side, in appellate or revisional jurisdiction, it is impossible to conceive of the High Court, making more than one order, in respect of the same case, and in relation to the same questions, arising there out." '
7. We are, therefore, of the confirmed view that the impugned judgment has not resulted in the miscarriage of justice, as it was passed after full hearing.1 A We find no merit in the application, which is accordingly dismissed.