2012 P Cr.

L J 164
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, JJ
SHAFI MUHAMMAD and another---Appellants
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent

Criminal Review Applications Nos. (S)3 and 4 of 2011 in Criminal Appeals Nos.3 and 4 of
2011, decided on 22nd September, 2011.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 369---Alteration or review of judgment---Scope---"Alter" or "review"---Connotation---

Provisions of S.369, Cr.P.C. had precluded
the court of criminal jurisprudence to alter its judgment after it had been written, signed
and pronounced, except to correct a clerical error---Such principle would apply to the
judgments given by any court, including the High Court, in exercise of its criminal original
jurisdiction---Words "alter or review" in S.369, Cr.P.C., connoted reversing an order of
allowing the appeal or dismissing the same and would also include reduction or enhancement
of the sentence ordered in the judgment sought to be reviewed---Contention that order sought
to be reviewed did not qualify to be a final judgment, was repelled as the word 'judgment' in
S.369, Cr.P.C. would include "any order which would tend to dispose of the matter finally."
Iqbal v. The State and another 2001 PCr.LJ 1634; Maulana Muhammad Azam Tariq,
MNA v. Khursheed Ali and another 1996 PCr.LJ 119; Pir Sultan Ahmed v. Haji Abdul Hameed
and another PLD 1980 Kar. 294 and Juan Sullivan v. The State 1971 SCMR 618 ref.
Shah Nazar Khan and 6 others v. Goga Khan and 5 others 2005 YLR 3297 rel.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----Ss. 561-A & 369---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Provisions of S.561-A,

Cr.P.C., conferred inherent powers upon High Court to make such orders as could be necessary
to give effect to any order under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898; or to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or, otherwise to secure the ends of justice---Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. would
not give any power to alter the order passed by the court---Section 369, Cr.P.C., specifically
mentioned that no court, when it had signed its judgment, would alter or review the same ---
Power of review could only be exercised for the specific purpose of correcting any error,
which, prima facie, appeared on the surface of the record; and could be deleted without a
further elaborate inquiry or investigation.
PLD 1970 Kar. 737 rel.
Kamran Murtaza for Appellant.
Abdullah Kurd, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th August, 2011.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---By way of filing instant criminal

review applications under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, applicants
Shafi Muhammad and Akbar seek review of orders of this court dated 30-6-2011 (wrongly
mentioned the date as 3-6-2011 in certified copies of the orders and memo of the appeals),
passed in Criminal Appeals No.(S)03 and 04 of 2011, whereby the appeals filed by the
applicants were dismissed as not pressed. Since common question of law and facts are involved
in the matter, particularly when both the applicants, in connected Criminal Appeal No.(S)02
of 2011, were acquitted of the charge by this court vide short order dated 30-6-2011 therefore,
we proposed to dispose of these applications by means of common order.
2. The applicants were tried in case Crime No.15 of 2010, under section 302 read with
sections 147 and 148 of the P.P.C., registered at Police Station City, Usta Muhammad District
Jaffarabad and were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, however, in appeal, both of
them were acquitted of the charge by this Court vide short order dated 30-6-2011. Similarly,
the applicants were also convicted and sentenced in connected cases registered against them
under section 13(e) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 by the trial Court, against which,
they preferred Criminal Appeals Nos.(S) 03 and 04 of 2011 before this Court, however, the
said appeals were dismissed as not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants vide orders
dated 30-6-2011, hence, these applications.
3A. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicants, contended, inter alia, that,
perhaps, the counsel was under the bona fide impression, while not pressing the appeals on
merits, that the applicants had already completed their sentences in jail in arms cases, however,
after acquittal in main murder case, when the concerned authority of the jail was contacted, it
transpired that still a considerable period of sentence is left. He further contended that neither
non-pressing of the appeals in said manner was permissible, nor the counsel was instructed for
the same, which has materially prejudiced the interest of applicants. He next contended that
the orders, sought to be reviewed, do not qualify to be a judgment, creating a bar within the
meaning of section 369 of the Cr.P.C. The learned counsel, lastly, contended that in the event
of reviewing orders dated 30-6-2011, either the appeals may be heard on merits or substantial
reduction may be made in the quantum of the sentences awarded to the applicants.
3B. Mr. Abdullah Kurd, learned Additional Prosecutor-General, representing the State, has
pointed out, at the very outset, that in view of the bar contained in section 369 of the Cr.P. C.,
the High Court is precluded to review its own order, to augment the pleas. In this regard, he
placed reliance on the following judgments:--
(i) Iqbal v. the State and another-reported in 2001 PCr.LJ 1634 (Peshawar),
(ii) Maulana Muhammad Azam Tariq, MNA v. Khursheed Ali and another-reported in
1996 PCr.LJ 119 (Lahore),
(iii) Pir Sultan Ahmed v. Haji Abdul Hameed and another-reported in PLD 1980 Kar 294,
and
(iv) Juan Sullivan v. The State-reported in 1971 SCMR 618.
4. At this juncture, it would be advantageous to reproduce hereinbelow section 369 of the
Cr.P.C, which speaks as under:--
369. Court not to alter judgment.---Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by
any other law for the time being in force or, in case of a High Court b y the Letters
Patent of such High Court no Court when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review
the same, except to correct a clerical error."
It is crystal clear from the above quoted provision of law that it precludes Court of
criminal jurisdiction to alter its judgment after it has been written, signed and pronounced,
except to correct a clerical error. It applies to the judgments given by any Court, including the
High Court, in exercise of criminal original jurisdiction. The words "alter or review" connote
reversing an order of allowing the appeal or dismissing the same and would also include
reduction or enhancement of the sentence ordered in the judgment sought to be reviewed.
When attention of learned counsel for the applicants was drawn to this aspect of the matter, he
submitted that the High Court possesses jurisdiction to review its own order and the
jurisdiction is not ousted under exceptional circumstances. We are afraid, there can be no two
opinions that section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. confers inherent powers upon this Court to make
such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But it does not give any
power to alter the order passed by the Court. As already observed, there is a specific
provision of law, which deals with this aspect of the matter i.e. section 369 of the
Cr.P.C., wherein it is specifically mentioned that no Court, when it has signed its ju dgment,
shall alter or review the same. The power of review can only be exercised for the specific
purpose of correcting any error, which, prima facie, appears on the surface of the record and
could be deleted without a further elaborate inquiry or investigation. This view got support
from a judgment-reported in PLD 1970 Karachi 737, relevant portion whereof is as under:--
"25. While pointing out that re-hearing of the same matter by the High Court would
result in conscious violation of the universally recognized principle that "it is in the
interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation", his Lordship observed as
follows:
"In view of the finality attaching to judgments of the High Court pronounced on the
criminal side, in appellate or revisional jurisdiction, it is impossible to conceive of the
High Court making more than one order, in respect of the same case and in relation to
the same question arising there out."
 5. Reverting to the next contention of the learned counsel that the order sought to be
reviewed does not qualify to be a final judgment, is
also devoid of any force, for the reasons that the word
"judgment" in section 369 of the Cr.P.C. also includes any order, which tends to
dispose of the matter finally. In this regard, we fortified
our view to a case of Shah Nazar Khan and 6 others v. Goga Khan and 5 others-reported
in 2005 YLR 3297 (Peshawar), wherein it has been observed:--
"Review of judgment---"Judgment" in legal parlance means judicial verdict deciding a
case, finally so far as the Court seized of the case was concerned and with its
pronouncement
pending proceeding/case would stand terminated leaving nothing for future to b
e considered or re-considered---Word
"judgment" could not be confined only to an order of conviction and acquittal of
accused person, because that was one aspect of it."
For the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the Court
becomes functus officio after it passes and signs the order, resultantly, we find no merit in the
applications, which are, accordingly, dismissed.
H.B.T./137/Q Application dismissed.