' The petitioner through this application Criminal Miscellaneous No,3 of 1995 in Criminal Appeal No,592 of 1994 under sections 561-A and 497(5), Cr.P.C. Seeks the Court to withdraw orders passed by the Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1 of 1994 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,2 of 1995, dated 14-12-1994 and 2-2-1995 respectively in the aforementioned criminal appeal filed by the respondents, whereby the sentence awarded to the respondents were suspended under section 426, Cr.P.C. And were released on bail.
2. The leaned counsel for the petitioner at the preliminary hearing of the application had contended that the casw-law relied upon by the respondents' counsel reported as Ijjatulla Akanda and others v. Emperor AIR (32) 1945 Cal. 42 was not applicable to the facts of the case in hand; in fact the learned counsel instead of assisting the Court; further conceded that due to abruptly mishap caused due to him; could not assist the Court in proper manner.
3. The Criminal Miscellaneous No,3 of 1995 was taken up by this Court on 10-1-1996 as after hearing preliminary hearing and admitting the application notices were issued to the respondents for 24-1- 1996; on 24-1-1996 none appeared; hence notices were re-issued to respondents for 7-2-1996 and respondents were also directed to appear in person before the Court. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Kasur, was directed vide Lahore High Court letter No,(J.D.)/5871, dated 29-1-1996 to cause notice to be served upon the respondents; the S.H.O., Police Station Raja Jang who was deputed by the S.S.P. For causing service upon the respondents intimated vide his report, dated 6-2-1996 that the respondents refused to receive notices and intentionally avoided service of the notices issued in their names; on 12-3-1996 when the case was taken up learned counsel, Mr. Shaukat Rafique Bajwa, Advocate, for the respondents appeared and sought adjournment to prepare the case in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant and to go through the case relied upon by the senior counsel of his chamber; though the request for adjournment was opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner but in the interest of justice and to provide an opportunity of hearing of the respondents the case was adjourned to 24-3-1996 with the condition that no further adjournment would be granted in future.
4. On 23-4-1996, none appeared from the respondents hence the case was adjourned to 25-4- 1996 to afford another opportunity to the respondents. On the said date neither learned counsel nor respondents appeared in the early hours of the day; though the State Counsel was present. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State advanced their respective arguments at length; at 11-30 a.m. The learned counsel for the respondents entered appearance and stated that the respondents had taken away their brief from their chamber, hence is unable to assist the Court as no more counsel for the respondents.
5. I am constrained to observe that the learned counsel for the respondents on the previous date had sought adjournment to prepare the case in the light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner; the respondents were directed to remain present; neither respondents appeared nor the power of attorney has been revoked so far by the respondents in the case as per record nor the Court was intimated by the learned counsel prior in this regard. The manner, the Criminal Miscellaneous No,3 of 1995 has been handled by the learned counsel for the respondents; coupled with refusal of respondents to receive notices and avoidance of intentional service of notices by the respondents is nothing but misuse of process of law as well as concession of bail/suspension of sentence granted to the respondents.
6. True as it was agitatively argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order under criminal law cannot be revoked even under section 369, Cr.P.C.; the contention of the learned counsel is misconceived in matters regarding cancellation of bail/suspension of sentence as the powers possessed by the Courts under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Cannot be curtailed or limited in any manner by any jurisdictional requirement as the jurisdictional requirements of the exercise of powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice; further suspension of sentence under section 426, Cr.P.C. Is not a right but is a matter of grace by the Court; the conduct of respondents warrants that they are not entitled to the concession of suspension of sentence under the circumstances; hence orders, dated 14-12-1994 D and 2-2-1995 are hereby withdrawn.
'7. The main case was also fixed for 23-4-1996 and then on 25-4-1996; as none appeared; the respondents have misused the concession of suspension of sentence; the sureties are directed to produce the respondents before Assistant Commissioner, Kasur; who shall forward the respondents to the jail and discharge the sureties; if the sureties failed to produce the respondents before the A.C.; law will take its own course.