DIVISION BENCH
Before Abdur Rahman and Cornelius, JJ.
ABDUL GHANI – Petitioner
versus
THE CROWN – Respondent

Criminal Revision No. 1075 of 1947, decided on 19th March, 1948, from the order of Sessions Judge, Sialkot, dated 15th January 1947.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 19898), S. 439 – High Court’s discretion – Not circumscribed by rules – Discretion left free and complete – To be exercised with reference to occasion and justice of case.

The Indian Legislature has expressly given complete discretion to the High Court to act under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code in a certain number of specified ways, and such action may be required to be taken in the entire field of human relationships in those aspects which attract the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts. The High Court is not entitled to lay down any rule, applicable to ay class of case, which would have the effect of providing that the discretion conferred upon the court possible for the Court to lay down any such rule, it should not do so but should leave the discretion permitted by the section as free to be exercised by the Court, whenever the occasion arises, according to the justice of the case.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 522 – Order under, against accused – Accused acquitted in appeal – Court not compelled by mere fact of acquittal to restore property – Each case to be decided on own circumstances.

No logical considerations compel a Court to put back into possession of any immovable property a person who was convicted of an offence involving use or show of criminal force or criminal intimidation in respect of such property, and who was deprived of its possession following such conviction, by an order under section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, merely by reason of such person having been acquitted of the offence.

5 P. R. (Cr.) 1895 F. B. distinguished.
1923 A. I. R. Lahore 15; 118 I. c. 392 overruled.
Malik Muhammad Amin, for Petitioner.
Nazir Ahmad Mahmud, for Advocate General, for Respondent.