Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1991.P Cr. L J 2321

NAWAB DIN vs NAZAR HUSSAIN And Another

Citation1991.P Cr. L J 2321
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Revision No. 333 of .1989
Date1991-04-27
Judge(s)Muhammad Munir Khan
ResultRevision dismissed

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the suit for arrears of rent pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Chiniot, so he will get his suit dismissed as withdrawn, as per his own statement made before this Court.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.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch