Summary: Illegal disposition requirements ---- (a) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 —- Ss. 3, 4 & 5 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Ss. 435 & 439 — Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A Maintainability of complaint — Concurrent civil litigation — Jurisdiction of trial court — Scope of inquiry under the 2005 Act — Remedial purpose — Complaint under Ss. 3 & 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed by trial court without trial, solely on grounds that (i) petitioner and respondent were co-owners in un-partitioned land, and (ii) civil litigation was pending — High Court upheld dismissal relying on judgments in Habib Ullah v. Abdul Manan (2012 SCMR 1533) and Bashir Ahmed v. ASJ Faisalabad (PLD 2010 SC 661) — Held, both precedents had been declared "not good law" by Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (PLD 2016 SC 769) — Dismissal of complaint solely due to pending civil litigation or co-ownership status is contrary to established law — Sessions court is duty-bound to determine from available material whether unlawful dispossession occurred, even in presence of parallel civil proceedings — Complaint under 2005 Act is maintainable unless trial court determines that it is being misused to convert a civil dispute into criminal liability — Dual-track nature of civil and criminal liabilities underlies the Act’s independent remedial character. Cited Cases: • Gulshan Bibi v. Muhammad Sadiq (PLD 2016 SC 769) • Muhammad Naseem v. Fareeda Gul (2016 SCMR 1931) • Abdul Majeed v. The State (2017 SCMR 390) • Criminal Petitions No. 66-K & 67-K of 2024 (2024 SCP 243) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed; matter remanded to trial court for determination in accordance with 2005 Act. (b) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 —- S. 5(1), Second Proviso Scope of inquiry — Role of trial court — Failure to investigate key factual questions — Effect — Trial court failed to investigate core factual issue of actual possession prior to alleged dispossession, despite calling for police report — Inquiry report submitted under order dated 19.12.2020 was deficient and failed to address possession status of complainant prior to occurrence — Held, trial court should have invoked second proviso to S. 5(1) and directed further inquiry — Instead, it erroneously dismissed the complaint without trial — Jurisdictional error committed by trial court by not determining whether alleged illegal dispossession actually occurred. Judicial Direction: On remand, trial court must conduct inquiry in accordance with 2005 Act and determine (i) if petitioner was dispossessed, and (ii) effect of delay, if any, in filing complaint. (c) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 —- S. 3 — Scope and elements — Applicability test Conditions for application — Legal test from Mumtaz Hussain case reaffirmed — Four elements required for S. 3 offence: Property must be immovable; Complainant must be lawful owner or in lawful possession; Accused must have unlawfully entered the property; Such entry must be with intent to dispossess — Held, trial and High Court failed to properly apply this test — No findings rendered as to actual possession prior to occurrence — Summary dismissal without factual determination was unlawful. Cited Case: • Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr. Nasir Khan (2010 SCMR 1254) (d) Criminal Jurisdiction — Civil proceedings pending — Concurrent remedy — No bar on maintainability Dual-track proceedings — Civil litigation does not preclude prosecution under 2005 Act — Held, pendency of civil litigation regarding same immovable property does not nullify jurisdiction of criminal court under the 2005 Act — Criminal liability must be adjudicated on its own merits and cannot be defeated by citing pending civil suits — A person cannot take law into own hands, dispossess lawful occupier, and avoid criminal prosecution merely due to co-existing civil claims. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Naseem v. Fareeda Gul (2016 SCMR 1931) • Abdul Majeed v. The State (2017 SCMR 390) • Criminal Petitions No. 66-K & 67-K of 2024 (2024 SCP 243) Final Disposition: Leave to appeal granted. Petition converted to appeal and allowed. Judgments of High Court and trial court set aside. Matter remanded to trial court to proceed under 2005 Act, assess legality of alleged dispossession, and determine effect of delay in filing complaint.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 10-A & 191A Judicial conduct—Due process—Natural justice—Right to fair hearing—High Court passed adverse remarks against Presiding Officer of Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) without affording any opportunity to respond or be heard—Remarks based solely on oral assertions of Acting Prosecutor General that father of accused remained in chamber of judge before remand order was changed—No written complaint or affidavit filed—Held, adverse remarks passed without notice or inquiry were in breach of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution—Principles of natural justice apply equally to judicial officers—Remarks expunged—Constitutional Bench jurisdiction under Art. 191A was held not to be attracted as matter did not involve interpretation of Constitution, constitutionality of law, or Article 184/185/186 jurisdiction—Transfer applications to Constitutional Bench dismissed as frivolous. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997): ----Ss. 13(2), 14(2), 19(1) & 21-E Presiding Officer and Administrative Judge of ATC—Jurisdiction and powers—Appointment—Petitioner was appointed as Presiding Officer and designated as Administrative Judge, ATC, Karachi Division—Orders passed by him refusing physical remand and directing judicial custody based on accused’s complaint of maltreatment, and directing constitution of Joint Investigation Team (JIT)—High Court set aside these orders and observed that constitution of JIT was beyond authority of Administrative Judge under S.19(1), which vests such power in Government—Held, powers under S.13(2) and S.21-E must be exercised within statutory boundaries—However, procedural irregularities alone did not justify passing strictures without hearing the judge. (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: ----Ss. 435 & 439 Revision jurisdiction—Scope—High Court may call for records and examine correctness, legality or propriety of orders passed by inferior criminal courts—However, findings regarding impropriety or misconduct must be based on verifiable evidence and due process—High Court acted beyond jurisdiction by issuing directions and passing adverse remarks without due inquiry—Expungement of remarks directed. (d) Judicial Accountability and Conduct—Strictures against judicial officers—Scope and limitations: High Court’s directions in Paragraph No.14 of impugned order inviting administrative action against ATC judge held unjustified and in disregard of binding precedents—Judicial condemnation without notice creates irreparable stigma on judicial officer’s reputation—Condemnation without affording opportunity violates settled law—Superior Courts must act as mentors, not censors—Ref: Miss Nusrat Yasmin v. Registrar, PHC (PLD 2019 SC 719), Aijaz Ahmed Tunio v. State (PLD 2021 SC 752), Hasnain Raza v. LHC (PLD 2022 SC 7)—Doctrine of stare decisis re-emphasized—Deviation from binding precedent undermines uniformity and legal certainty—Ref: Federation v. Muhammad Hamid Mughal (PLD 2024 SC 515), Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder v. Federation (PLD 2010 SC 483). (e) Administrative Remedy—Judicial strictures—Proper recourse: In case of perceived misconduct or error by a judicial officer, proper course is to refer matter to Chief Justice on administrative side via confidential note—Open-court adverse remarks should be avoided—Even if expunged later, they leave permanent reputational harm—High Court failed to follow Supreme Court’s guidelines on discipline and comity. ---Disposition: Criminal Petitions converted into appeals—Transfer applications dismissed—Without disturbing Notifications dated 26.02.2025 and 27.02.2025 (regarding change of Administrative Judge), the directions and adverse remarks contained in Paragraph No.14 of the High Court’s impugned order dated 18.02.2025 were expunged.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): **----S. 489-F—Dishonestly issuing a cheque—Loan repayment—Obligation—Conviction upheld with modification—Petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 500,000/- allegedly to repay a loan, which was dishonoured on presentation—Trial Court convicted Petitioner under S. 489-F PPC and sentenced him to 1½ years of simple imprisonment with benefit of S. 382-B Cr.P.C—Appellate Court reduced sentence to 1 year—Held, issuance of cheque as a guarantee or in fulfillment of an obligation falls within the scope of S. 489-F PPC—Dishonest intention inferred from dishonoured cheque and failure to repay—Petitioner’s plea that it was a business transaction or investment not substantiated by any documentary evidence—Prosecution discharged initial burden; burden shifted to accused who failed to rebut effectively—No illegality or irregularity found in impugned judgments—However, sentence reduced to period already undergone considering quantum involved. Cited Law: S. 489-F, Penal Code, 1860 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: **----Ss. 435, 439-A & 342—Scope of revisional jurisdiction—Criminal Revision Petition filed against concurrent findings of guilt by Trial and Appellate Courts—Held, revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-evaluation of evidence unless material irregularity or manifest injustice is shown—No major contradiction or illegality found—Reduction of sentence justified considering cheque amount and period already undergone by convict. Cited Law: Ss. 435 & 439-A, Cr.P.C. **(c) Criminal trial—Principles of evidence—Onus—Admitted receipt of money and issuance of cheque—Defense plea of investment/guarantee unsupported by receipts or business documentation—In criminal trials, once prosecution proves issuance and dishonour of cheque in fulfillment of obligation, burden shifts to accused—Failure to discharge burden warrants conviction—Guarantee cheques also fall within the ambit of S. 489-F PPC. Disposition: Criminal revision petition partly allowed—Conviction under S. 489-F PPC maintained—Sentence reduced to period already undergone (since 18.10.2024) in view of mitigating circumstances and quantum of dishonoured cheque—Trial and Appellate Court judgments upheld otherwise. "Crl. Rev. against conviction in FIR No. 450/2017 dated 19.12.2017 U/s 489-F PPC P.S. Tarnol, Islamabad"

Summary: Cancellation of Bail set aside ---(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---Ss. 435, 439 & 497(5)---Cancellation of bail---Principles governing cancellation of bail---Addition of new sections to invoke the prohibitory clause---Scope Petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad (West), whereby post-arrest bail granted to him in FIR No. 496, dated 28.07.2023, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 381, and 34, PPC, was recalled on the ground that Section 467, PPC was later added, bringing the case under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The court noted that the investigation officer (I.O) had not included Section 467, PPC in the remand applications but subsequently added it after the grant of bail, which was not disclosed before the Magistrate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) held that bail cannot be cancelled merely due to the addition of a new section if the prosecution’s conduct indicates mala fide intent. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Saeed Ullah v. The State (2023 SCMR 1397) laid down that bail may only be cancelled in exceptional circumstances, such as misuse of bail, interference with prosecution evidence, or likelihood of absconding. The court found that none of these grounds were present, and the prosecution’s act of adding a new section post-bail to bring the case under the prohibitory clause was an attempt to misuse the legal process. Consequently, the cancellation of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge was declared unjustified, and the recall order was set aside. ----- Cited Cases: Muhammad Tanveer v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733) Saeed Ullah v. The State (2023 SCMR 1397) Muzafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Imran Aziz (2004 SCMR 231) The State v. Muhammad Sarwar (2017 SCMR 1993) ----- Disposition: Revision petition accepted—Cancellation of bail set aside—Bail order restored as its recall was based on mala fide and procedural impropriety.

Summary: (a) Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005: ----S. 3---Scope and applicability---Dispute between family members---Civil nature of the matter---Effect. The complainant filed a case under S. 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, alleging that the respondents, including her mother and other family members, had illegally dispossessed her from a house that was orally gifted to her by her deceased father. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the dispute was of a civil nature arising out of inheritance, and that family members cannot be booked under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellate court upheld this decision, ruling that the Act applies primarily to land grabbers, Qabza groups, and property mafias, and does not cover disputes between family members involving inheritance, ownership claims, or possession issues. The matter was deemed to be within the jurisdiction of civil courts, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 435 & 439---Criminal revision converted into appeal---Acquittal of respondents---Interference by appellate court---Principles. The complainant initially filed a criminal revision against the acquittal of the respondents, which was later converted into a criminal appeal. The court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere in an acquittal unless there is a glaring illegality or misreading of evidence. In the present case, the trial court had examined the material available and found that the matter was civil in nature, falling outside the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellate court found no illegality, infirmity, or material irregularity in the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, affirming that disputes of possession between family members should be adjudicated through civil litigation rather than criminal proceedings under the Act. (c) Jurisdiction of Special Laws: ----Scope of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005---Civil litigation vs. criminal prosecution---Misuse of special laws. The court emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was enacted to protect lawful owners and occupiers from land grabbers, not to be misused in private disputes over inheritance or ownership among family members. It was held that if possession-related claims involve competing title documents, inheritance disputes, or co-ownership claims, the matter should be decided through civil proceedings, and invoking the Act in such cases is not permissible. The trial court had correctly filtered out the complaint as one lacking criminal intent, preventing the misuse of criminal law for personal property disputes. (d) Burden of Proof in Illegal Dispossession Cases: ----Elements required to establish illegal dispossession---Failure to prove forcible entry and ouster---Effect. To invoke the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complainant must establish that: (i) the property was immovable; (ii) the complainant was the lawful owner or in lawful possession; (iii) the accused unlawfully entered the property; and (iv) such entry resulted in forcible dispossession or occupation against the complainant’s will. In the present case, the complainant failed to establish these elements, as her claim was based on an alleged oral gift, which was disputed by the respondents. The court held that where possession claims are subject to civil adjudication, a complaint under the Act cannot be entertained. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Trial court’s decision upheld.

Summary: Background:In Cr. Misc. No. 260 of 2018, the petitioner Sajjad Hussain challenged the order dated 30-11-2018 passed by the Administrative Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No.1 Gilgit. The trial court had dismissed an application filed under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. for the acquittal of the petitioner. The petitioner sought acquittal under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., arguing that he was not directly charged in the FIR and that his co-accused had already been acquitted.---Issues:Whether the application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. was maintainable against the impugned order.Whether the petitioner should be acquitted based on the lack of direct evidence and the acquittal of co-accused.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court converted the application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. into a criminal revision petition and allowed the petition, acquitting the petitioner. The key points of the judgment are:Conversion of Petition: The court converted the application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. into a criminal revision petition, citing the jurisdiction to do so under Section 435 Cr.P.C.Acquittal of Co-Accused: The co-accused of the petitioner had been acquitted by the trial court, and the State's appeal against this acquittal was dismissed by the High Court.Lack of Direct Evidence: The petitioner was not directly charged in the FIR, which was registered against unknown persons. No eye-witnesses or incriminating articles were presented against the petitioner.Confessional Statement: The sole evidence against the petitioner was his confessional statement recorded under Section 21-H of the ATA 1997 by the S.S.P Gilgit. This statement was retracted and deemed inadmissible as it was made before the police and lacked corroborating evidence.Legal Principles: The court emphasized that a confession made before the police is not admissible unless supported by strong circumstantial evidence, which was absent in this case.Given the lack of direct evidence and the similarity of the petitioner's case to his acquitted co-accused, the court found that the petitioner was entitled to acquittal.---Citations/Precedents:Sections 561-A, 265-K, 435 Cr.P.C. (Criminal Procedure Code)Section 21-H ATA 1997 (Anti-Terrorism Act)Previous judgments of the Sindh High Court (PLD-2000-K-74 and PLD 1982 Karachi-130)

Summary: Background: An FIR No. 177/2007 was lodged on 28.03.2007 by a complainant, an employee of Global Trading Company, alleging that the company had given Rs. 936,875 to the applicant. The applicant issued a cheque which bounced upon presentation. The complainant demanded the return of the money, but the applicant failed to comply, leading to the registration of the case under section 489-F PPC. The applicant's initial bail applications were denied until bail was granted by the court. The applicant then filed an application for acquittal under sections 249-A/249 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate. This led to the present application for quashing the order. ----Issues: 1- Whether the complainant, being an employee of the company, was competent to lodge the FIR. 2- Whether the dispute was of a civil nature, making the criminal case against the applicant invalid. 3- Whether the application for quashing the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was maintainable. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The court held that: Under section 44 Cr.P.C., any person aware of the commission of an offense can lodge an FIR. The complainant, being an employee of the company, was deemed competent to file the FIR. The dispute, although civil in nature, included the intentional issuance of a bogus cheque, which is a criminal offense under section 489-F PPC. The complainant had the right to pursue both civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously. The application for quashing the order was not maintainable as the applicant had an efficacious remedy to challenge the order before the learned Sessions Judge in revision under section 435 Cr.P.C. The court dismissed the application, stating that the proceedings before the learned trial court should continue. ----Citations/Precedents Section 44, Cr.P.C.: Public to give information of certain offenses. Section 489-F, PPC: Issuance of a cheque dishonestly. Section 249-A/249, Cr.P.C.: Acquittal at any stage. Section 11, PPC: Definition of 'person' including companies and associations. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C.: Inherent powers of the High Court. Section 435, Cr.P.C.: Revision by Sessions Judge.

Summary: a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 31---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.203 & 265-K---Finality of orders---Orders passed by Anti-Terrorism Court not appealable but final in nature---Scope---Finality clause under S.31, ATA, 1997 does not cover every order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---Certain orders, though not appealable under S.25, ATA, 1997, are final in nature and can be examined through revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Such orders include: (i) discharge of an accused; (ii) remand of an accused; (iii) dismissal of private complaint under S.203, Cr.P.C.; (iv) summoning or non-summoning of accused in private complaint; (v) summoning or non-summoning of private witness; (vi) summoning or non-summoning of document or other thing; and (vii) rejection of application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 31---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.435 & 439---Revision against order of Anti-Terrorism Court---Maintainability---High Court has revisional jurisdiction over orders of Anti-Terrorism Court where order is not appealable under ATA but affects rights of parties and attains finality in respect of such issue---Anti-Terrorism Court is a criminal court subordinate/inferior to High Court for purposes of revisional jurisdiction under Cr.P.C., except to extent expressly barred by special law. (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----S. 21-D---Bail orders passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision---Bar---Special restriction imposed by S.21-D, ATA, 1997 excludes revisional remedy in bail matters to the extent provided therein---High Court’s revisional jurisdiction remains available for other non-appealable final orders of Anti-Terrorism Court under Ss.435 and 439, Cr.P.C. (d) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----Ss. 25, 31 & 32---Appeal, finality and application of Cr.P.C.---Interpretation---S.25 provides appeal against final judgment/order/sentence of Anti-Terrorism Court---S.31 gives finality to judgment/order/sentence of Anti-Terrorism Court subject to result of appeal under the Act---S.32 applies Cr.P.C. to proceedings before Anti-Terrorism Court so far as not inconsistent with ATA---Combined effect is that Cr.P.C. revisional provisions continue to apply to orders not falling within appeal mechanism and not expressly excluded by ATA. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 175, 199 & 203---Anti-Terrorism Court---Status---Subordinate/inferior Court---Judicial framework under Constitution---Courts recognized by Constitution include Supreme Court, High Courts, Federal Shariat Court and such other courts as may be established by law---Anti-Terrorism Court, being created by statute, falls within category of courts established by law and remains subject to supervisory/revisional control of High Court unless expressly excluded by law. (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition against interim/order of Anti-Terrorism Court---Maintainability---Where an efficacious remedy of criminal revision is available against non-appealable final/interlocutory order of Anti-Terrorism Court, constitutional petition under Art.199 is not maintainable---Writ petition challenging non-summoning/summoning order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court was converted into criminal revision. (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss.435 & 439---High Court’s power of revision---Inferior criminal courts---Anti-Terrorism Court---High Court may call for and examine record of any inferior criminal court to satisfy itself as to correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order---Anti-Terrorism Court, though not subordinate to Sessions Court, is inferior/subordinate to High Court for revisional purposes. (h) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S.6---Classes of criminal courts---Courts created under special law---Effect---Cr.P.C. recognizes that, besides High Courts and courts constituted under Cr.P.C., there may be other criminal courts constituted under other laws---Such courts remain subject to revisional control of High Court unless revisional jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly excluded. (i) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----Private complaint---Order summoning some accused and refusing to summon others---Remedy---Petitioner filed private complaint before Anti-Terrorism Court and challenged order whereby some proposed accused were not summoned/deleted from array of accused---Such order was not appealable under ATA but was revisable before High Court---Constitutional petition was not proper remedy. (j) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S.203---Dismissal of private complaint by Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision---Order dismissing private complaint under S.203, Cr.P.C. by Anti-Terrorism Court is not appealable under ATA but is final in nature qua complainant’s grievance---High Court can examine such order in revisional jurisdiction. (k) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S.265-K---Application for acquittal---Rejection by Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision---Rejection of application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. is not appealable under S.25, ATA, 1997, but such order is final in nature for purposes of that application and may be assailed through criminal revision before High Court. (l) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 201---Judgment per incuriam---Effect---Decision rendered by a subsequent Bench of equal strength in ignorance of a statute, binding precedent of Supreme Court, or previous decision of equal strength of same Court on same issue, is per incuriam and has no precedential value. (m) Judicial precedent---- ----Short order of High Court/Supreme Court---Precedential value---Distinction---Short orders are of two kinds: first, those deciding a question of law in clear and operative terms; second, those merely admitting a case, fixing a matter, or making procedural/ad interim arrangements---Short order falling in first category has precedential value, while short order falling in second category has none. (n) Judicial discipline---- ----Coordinate Bench---Conflicting decisions---Reference to larger Bench---Where a Bench of equal strength disagrees with earlier decision of coordinate Bench, proper course is to refer matter to a larger Bench rather than deciding contrary to earlier view---Failure to follow this course creates uncertainty, undermines judicial comity and may render later contrary decision per incuriam. (o) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 175 & 203---Access to justice---Independence of judiciary---Subordination of special courts---Tribunal or special court exercising judicial power must fit within constitutional judicial hierarchy and remain under supervisory control of High Court, unless Constitution or valid law provides otherwise---Special criminal court cannot be treated as wholly outside High Court’s revisional/supervisory structure merely because it is established under special statute. (p) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---- ----Purpose of special law---Speedy trial---Effect on revisional jurisdiction---Mere fact that ATA was enacted for speedy trial does not, by itself, exclude revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Exclusion of such jurisdiction must be express or necessarily implied from statute---No such general exclusion exists except where ATA specifically restricts remedy. (q) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss.435, 436 & 439---Writ petition converted into criminal revision---Proper procedural course---Where petitioner had invoked Art.199 against non-summoning order of Anti-Terrorism Court but High Court found revision to be proper remedy, writ petition was ordered to be converted into criminal revision and numbered accordingly. Disposition: Full Bench held that Anti-Terrorism Court is a subordinate/inferior criminal court to High Court for purposes of revisional jurisdiction; High Court can entertain criminal revision under Ss.435, 436 and 439, Cr.P.C. against non-appealable orders of Anti-Terrorism Court, except bail matters restricted by S.21-D, ATA, 1997. Constitutional petition under Art.199 was held not maintainable where revision was competent, and writ petition was directed to be converted into criminal revision.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 435, 439 & 497(5)—Revision—Cancellation of bail—Principles—Scope—Where order granting bail was passed without due appreciation of material evidence and the accused was found involved in multiple similar criminal cases, the revisional or appellate court is justified in cancelling bail—Held, discretion to grant bail is not absolute; it must be exercised judiciously and cannot be arbitrary or perverse—If the order of bail is obtained through suppression of material facts or where subsequent circumstances show habitual criminal conduct, bail may rightly be recalled—Reliance placed on Shameel Ahmed v. The State (2009 SCMR 174). (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 489-F—Cheating, forgery, and dishonestly issuing cheques—Accused allegedly defrauded complainant of Rs.3,500,000/- through sale of fake property documents and was also found involved in several other similar cases—Held, circumstances justified cancellation of bail as likelihood of repetition of offence and absconsion was evident. (c) Criminal law—Bail—Principle—Grant of bail is discretionary but not unfettered—Court must consider antecedents, conduct, and likelihood of misuse of liberty; where the accused is prima facie a habitual offender, bail cannot be sustained on grounds of leniency. (d) Practice and procedure—Expeditious trial—Direction—Trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously as charge had already been framed and no prosecution witness examined—Complainant also directed to cooperate by appearing for evidence; failure to do so shall entitle accused to seek fresh relief before High Court. (g) Disposition— Criminal Revision dismissed—Order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 02.07.2024 recalling bail maintained—Trial court directed to expedite proceedings; liberty granted to accused to move fresh petition if complainant defaults in appearance.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 200, 435 & 439---Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), Ss. 3 & 4---Complaint dismissed by Trial Court without recording complainant’s statement in open Court---Mandatory compliance with S.200, Cr.P.C.---Non-compliance rendering order void ab initio---Held, that S.200, Cr.P.C. makes it obligatory upon the Magistrate to record the statement of complainant and witnesses, if any, on oath in open Court before proceeding further---In the present case, a typed statement was placed on record bearing only the complainant’s signature, without the signature or seal of the learned Judge---Trial Court failed to perform the mandatory act of recording statement in open Court; such omission vitiated the entire proceedings---Impugned order, therefore, was legally unsustainable and warranted interference in revision. (b) Police Order (XXII of 2002)--- ----Police Rules---Inquiry report—Vagueness and non-compliance with law---Held, that the Trial Court directed SHO P.S. Khanna to hold inquiry regarding possession and ownership, but the report submitted was vague, perfunctory, and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Police Order, 2002, and Police Rules---Investigating Officer was bound to associate both parties and record their statements as in an FIR under S.154, Cr.P.C.---Failure to conduct such lawful inquiry rendered the report defective and the Trial Court erred in relying upon it without scrutiny. (c) Administration of justice--- ----Procedural irregularity—Effect---Failure to follow mandatory procedure under S.200, Cr.P.C. and reliance on defective police report constituted serious procedural irregularities rendering impugned order null and void---Matter remanded for fresh proceedings. Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; case remanded to the Trial Court with directions to record statements of complainant and witnesses on oath under S.200, Cr.P.C., obtain fresh detailed police report, and proceed strictly in accordance with the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and Cr.P.C.