Zahid Maqsood Butt vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Zahid Maqsood Butt VS State Ss. 561-a & 249---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 408---Civil Proccedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11---Constitution of Pakistan, art.13---Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant---Pendency of criminal and civil proceedings---Discretion of staying of proceedings in the criminal trial by the revisional court---Scope---'Res judicata' and 'double jeopardy' applicability of---application for staying the criminal proceedings filed by the accused/respondent was dismissed by the Trial Court, however, the same was allowed by the revisional court---Contention of the petitioner/complainant was that although S.249, Cr.P.C., empowered the Magistrate to stop the proceedings, but guidelines were not available as to when, where and in what situation it could be invoked---Validity---Civil and criminal proceedings can go side by side provided subject matter before civil Court and criminal Court is the same and is required to be determined by civil Court first being Court of ultimate jurisdiction---Connotation "same subject matter" does not mean only a fact in issue relating to such subject but the subject matter as a whole---In the criminal litigation subject matter was 'misappropriation of amount' whether as an employee or partner whereas in civil litigation matter was of 'entitlement of amount'---Law does not permit any person to acquire disputed amount through misappropriation and if it is permitted, this would open an absurd practice of taking the law into one's own hands, giving an air to a mechanism of private vengeance parallel to constitutional arrangement for judicial system of the country---Decision of a criminal Court does not affect any question pending in civil Court between same parties because the outcomes and standard of proof in both proceedings are different, i.e., 'preponderance of evidence' in civil cases and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, thus, neither the principle of res-judicata nor principle of double jeopardy is applied in any manner---When the evidence was complete and case was fixed for final arguments, the revisional Court should have directed the Trial Court for decision of case on merits because if the fact in issue 'criminal breach of trust by an employee' was not proved, then court could see under Ss. 237/238, Cr.P.C., as to what offence had in fact been committed, or at the most could acquit the accused but not to stop the proceedings under S. 249 of Cr.P.C., which was meant for a situation when evidence on record was not sufficient to convict the offender but Court expects a later progress or development into the matter--- Discretion to stay the proceedings had not been exercised by the Trial Court---Revisional Court had also not discussed in its order the contours of order of Trial Court so as to override or supersede the discretion exercised by the Magistrate---Section 249 Cr.P.C. authorizes the Magistrate to stop the criminal proceeding, at any stage, initiated through any mode except through private complaint, without pronouncing the judgment either of acquittal or conviction and then release the accused---Order passed by Magistrate under S.249, Cr.P.C., was required to be backed by reasons which makes it a judicial order, amenable to revisional jurisdiction; however, it does not seek execution of bond by the accused conditional to his release---Bond is executed by the accused as an assurance to appear before the Court but when he does not remain in the process any more, execution of bond is not required---Section 249, of Cr.P.C., could not be thought of as a remedy available to order for stay of criminal proceedings because firstly, if the proceedings were pending through a private complaint, rescue under this section was not available; secondly, not requiring a bond for release of accused was an indicator that a novel situation had arisen in the proceedings which required a sine die adjournment of case without a time-bound schedule---Thus, 'to stop the proceeding' stood distinguished from 'stay of proceedings' and 'stay of prosecution'---Stay of proceedings was done to meet the situation when further proceeding was conditional to an order to be made by other Court, the higher Court or by the government---Criminal miscellaneous was allowed, in circumstances.

Zahid Maqsood Butt vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ