' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioner has challenged the wires of order dated, 5-7-2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Okara, whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 20-9-2010 of the learned Magistrate section 30 Depalpur was dismissed.
2. The brief facts germane to the filing of the instant petition are that Yaqoob, respondent No.3 got registered a case F.I.R. No.864 of 2008 dated 28-11-2008 under sections 452, 354, 506, 148, 149, P.P.C.
At Police Station Hujra Shah Moqeem, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara against Gul Farooq (petitioner) and his co-accused who applied for bail before arrest which was dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Add!: Sessions Judge, Depalpur on 25-4-2009. The accused also filed a quashment petition before this Court which was disposed of in terms that the petitioner might file an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Before the learned trial court which was filed by the petitioner but it has not been decided so far; after submission of challan under section 173, Cr.P.C.
The petitioner and his co-accused appeared before the learned trial Court who were directed to submit bail bonds within the definition of section 91, Cr.P.C. Without attending to the requirements of sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C.; the application filed by the complainant (respondent No.3) seeking arrest of the accused was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 20-9-2010. This order was assailed by the complainant through a revision petition on 7-12-2010 which was accepted vide order dated 5-7-2011 by learned Addl: Sessions Judge Okara with the observation that " the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is illegal, irregular and has been passed in dis- regard B of the mandatory provision of sections 496, 497 and 498 Cr.P.C", hence, the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Okara is patently illegal inasmuch as, the revision petition has been filed by the complainant (respondent No.3) after the limitation period and being a time barred case it should have been outrightly dismissed on the point of limitation; the petitioner and his ,co-accused attended the learned trial court regularly for years and never defaulted in this regard; the charge against the accused is groundless and their application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Is hanging fire since year 2009 which is like doing injustice to the applicants; the order passed by learned Magistrate on 20-9-2010, whereby, the petitioner was ordered to submit bail bonds under section 91, Cr.P.C. Is perfectly legal and hardly called for interference by the revisional court, on a time barred revision petition; lastly submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the order dated 20-9-2010 passed by the learned trial court may be restored. Relies upon case titled Muhammad Nur Ali and others v. The State (PLD 1961 Dacca 239).
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab who has entered appearance on Court's call submits that the instant petition is misconceived and militates against the ratio of the judgment titled Luqman All v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCM R 611) which clearly underlines that section 91, Cr.P.C. Is subservient to the operation of sections 496, 497 and 498, Cr.P.C.; no time limit has been provided by the statute for filing a criminal revision petition, therefore, respondent No.3 had filed a competent revision which was lawfully decided by the Revisional Court through the impugned order; lastly submits that the instant petition being misconceived may be dismissed.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, it transpires that the petitioner along with his co-accused is booked in case F.I.R. No.864 of 2008 dated 28-11-2008 for offences under sections 452, 354, 506, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Moqeem Tehsil Deepalpur, District Okara on the complaint of Haji Muhammad Yaqub. The accused applied for bail before arrest through an application under section 498, Cr.P.C. Which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25-4-2009 by learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Depalpur in following terms:- "At this stage it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the quashment is already pending in the Hon'ble High Court, Lahore wherein comments of the Local Police has been called and the original impugned order has been suspended. Therefore, the petitioner's counsel wants to withdraw the instant bail petition for the time being and accordingly, the instant pre- arrest bail petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn".
6. In the meantime the accused filed a quashment petition before this Court which was disposed of in year 2008 in terms that the petitioner might file an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
Before the learned trial court, if so, advised. The petitioner moved the aforesaid application which, according to him, has not been decided so far. The petitioner and his co-accused appear to have played a trick with the learned trial court as they without being on bail, kept attending the proceedings of the trial for a considerable period of time. On one fine morning, realizing the situation, the complainant (respondent No.3) moved a miscellaneous application before the learned trial court contending therein that the accused had not sought bail from any court of law so they may be ordered to be arrested. Their plea was disposed of by the learned trial court in terms that it was rejected and the accused were showered with impulsive generosity of submitting bail bonds within the meaning of section 91, Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the fact that they had been challaned by the police and placed in column No.3 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. The complainant being aggrieved of this order, challenged it before the revisional court through a revision petition on 7-12-2010, almost 2 months 17 days after .The order passed by the learned trial court. The learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Okara through a detailed judgment allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant with the following observations:- "14. Nutshell of the above discussion is that if a person accused of non-bailable offence is not only required to execute bond under section 91 for his appearance but it is also required that either he be taken into custody by the Court and if he is to be released on bail then before such release a notice to prosecution is to be issued and the grant or refusal of bail is then to be examined on its own merits. It is thus evident that a person accused of non-bailable offence should either be in the custody of the Court or in the custody of a surety in terms of section 496 or 497. Execution of bond under section 91 does not qualify the above test.
14. So the nut shull of the above discussion is that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is illegal irregular and has been passed in dis-regard of the mandatory provision of sections 496, 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. In the sanerio of above discussion, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The respondent/accused are not present in the Court. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court with the direction that the petitioner be dealt in accordance with provision of section 497, Cr. P. C. Or 498, Cr. P . C" ,
7. The discussion made by learned revisional.Court in the impugned judgment is definitely in line with the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Luqman Ali v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCM R 611). The learned magistrate/trial court badly failed to appreciate the contention of the complainant and passed an order which was patently illegal and void ab initio.
The kindness, which, at the most, could have been showered upon the accused-petitioner by the learned trial court was to allow him a few days' time to approach the Sessions Court concerned for seeking bail before arrest, if it did not intend to cause their arrest. But, instead of doing so, the learned trial court adopted such a course which could not be approved of by any stretch of imagination. The accused had been found involved in the occurrence during investigation by the Investigating Officer and placed in column No.3 of the challan. Can an accused, who appears before the court in pursuance of process under section 204, Cr.P.C. Be readily granted the favour, as done to the accused by the learned trial court in this case or he should have been required to seek bail, within the scope of sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C, is a proposition which has been dealt with by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the august judgment (2010 SCM R 611), referred to hereinabove, in the following terms:-- "10. Thus, the purpose of section 204, Cr.P.C., is to procure the attendance of the accused by issuing the required process. If the accused is in custody then such process can be issued by issuing production order to the jail authorities and if the accused is absconding then the process can he issued in the shape of warrants. It is pointed out that if the accused is absconding or released then the name of accused of both the categories are required to be mentioned in Column No.2 of the challan with red and blue ink, respectively therefore, the process is to be issued to the accused, who is absconding and similar process can also be issued to an accused whose name is in column No.2 with blue ink after he is made an accused in the case. It will be noted that warrants are addressed to the Police Officer to arrest the person and produce him before the Court on a particular date. Thereafter the said warrants become ineffective unless extended or re-issued by the Court. Similar is the case with the bailable warrants under which the Police Officer is required not to arrest the accused if he furnishes surety before him for his appearance before the Court on the date mentioned in the warrants. After appearance of the said accused before the Court the said order ceases to exist unless the accused is released in accordance with law.
(11) In such a situation when the accused appears in pursuance of process under section 204, Cr.P.C. Either through summons or warrants or bailable warrants or on his own and if the offence is non-bailable then the provisions of section 497, Cr. P. C. Would be attracted and accused could only be released after moving such application and grant of the same. If no such application is moved or no bail is granted by any competent Court either under section 497 or 498, Cr.P.C. As the case may be, then the accused is required to be remanded to judicial custody till the time a proper order is passed either by the trial Court or by the superior Court.
(12) We have examined the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and find that the same is well-reasoned, based upon correct interpretation of relevant provisions of law and relying upon the case of Noor Nabi (supra). We have also examined the said judgment and found that the learned High Court examined in depth all the required provisions of law and interpreted the same in its true perspective. We have examined the impugned order of the learned High Court but are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the finding arrived at by the learned High Court particularly releasing the accused without the grant of bail. Such release of the accused was unwarranted, illegal and against the provisions of sections 497 and 498, Cr. P . C. , therefore, the said order cannot be sustained".
8. So far as the argument of learned counsel regarding the question of limitation is concerned, one thing is to be remembered that no limitation is prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1908 nor Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, provides any such limitation. A revision petition cannot be rejected on mere ground of delay or laches. What requires the courts to observe is that a revision petition should be filed within a reasonable period of time which may change from case to case and situation to situation. Even in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held that the rule to file a revision petition within 30 days against an order complained of, was not inflexible and time could be extended in exceptional cases. Here in the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court clearly traversed: beyond its jurisdictional authority by misinterpreting the law and passed an order in favour of the petitioner-accused without caring for the law on the subject even in the slightest term and dealt with the matter in an unlawful and ridiculous manner. Mere technicalities, as objected to, by the learned counsel cannot be taken into consideration to annul a lawful judgment passed by the learned revisional court. The instant petition, therefore, fails being meritless and is dismissed in limine.