Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 365-A, 383 & 384-Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)-Kidnapping for ransom, extortion, act of terrorism-Reappraisal of evidence-Admittedly there was no evidence led by the prosecution showing that the accused was involved in the act of abduction of the alleged abductee-No evidence had been brought by the prosecution on the record establishing that the accused had demanded ransom for release of the alleged abductee-Some evidence brought by the prosecution on the record regarding making of telephone calls about ransom had been discarded by the High Court after recording cogent reasons-Alleged abductee or his deadbody had not been recovered at the instance of the accused-Only evidence brought on the record against the accused was that when the accused party had received the amount of ransom on that occasion the accused was driving the motorcar wherein the alleged abductee was kept in confinement on the rear seat by the co-accused-Even if the said allegation were to be accepted in its entirety the same would attract the provisions of S. 383, P.P.C. pertaining to extortion entailing a maximum sentence of three years' imprisonment as provided under S. 384, P.P.C.-Accused had already suffered incarceration for a period of about 12 years whereas the maximum sentence which could have been awarded to him for the offence of extortion was three years' imprisonment-Conviction and sentence of the accused recorded by the High Court under S. 365-A, P.P.C. and S. 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were set aside and instead the accused was convicted for an offence under S. 383, P.P.C. read with S. 384, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years which sentence he had already passed-Supreme Court directed that as the accused had spent more period of imprisonment than was due, therefore, he was not burdened with any fine, and that he shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case-Appeal was partly allowed accordingly. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh and Khan Nawaz, S.-I. for the State.

Summary: PLJ 1992 CrC (Peshawar) 307 [Abbottabad Bench] Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898) – Section 249-A read with Section 561-A: The case involved the challenge to the acquittal of the respondents under Section 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the trial court dismissed the charges due to lack of evidence. Challenge to Acquittal: The petitioner challenged the acquittal, but nothing was shown to be wrong with the impugned judgments of the lower courts. The Magistrate, after reviewing the case, found the charge groundless and determined that there was no probability of the accused being convicted of the offense. Held: No errors were pointed out in the judgments passed by the lower courts that would justify interference by the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction. As such, the petition was dismissed. [Pp. 308-309] A, B. -----Background: The petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the respondents, alleging various offenses, including trespass, theft, and criminal misappropriation of property, under Sections 447, 406, 427, 379, 384, and 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The complaint was filed before a Magistrate in Mansehra. After hearing the case, the Magistrate acquitted the respondents under Section 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), considering that the charges were groundless. The petitioner then filed a criminal revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansehra, which was also dismissed. Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the High Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C., challenging the acquittal orders of the lower courts. -----Issues: 1- Whether the acquittal of the respondents under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. was justified. -----2- Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to interfere with the judgments of the lower courts. -----Holding, Reasoning, and Outcome: --Acquittal under Section 249-A Cr.P.C.: The High Court reviewed the evidence and proceedings of the lower courts and found that the Magistrate had correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, after evaluating the available evidence and hearing both the prosecution and the defense, concluded that the charges were baseless and that there was no likelihood of the accused being convicted. The petitioner failed to provide any substantial evidence or argument to show that the decision of the Magistrate was erroneous. --Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C.: The High Court recognized its inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., which allow it to intervene in cases to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. However, the court noted that there was no material on record indicating any miscarriage of justice or procedural error in the judgments of the lower courts. The High Court found that both the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge had acted within their legal authority and followed proper legal procedure. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no error in the judgments of the lower courts that would warrant interference. The acquittal of the respondents under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 249-A Cr.P.C.: Grants power to a Magistrate to acquit the accused at any stage of the trial if the charge is groundless and there is no probability of conviction. Section 561-A Cr.P.C.: Provides the High Court with inherent powers to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the court's process or to secure the ends of justice. PLD 1966 SC 178: The Supreme Court ruled that non-compliance with Section 200 Cr.P.C., such as failure to examine the complainant on oath, is a curable irregularity under Section 537 Cr.P.C. The petition was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions, as there was no error or miscarriage of justice.