Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 313 of 1967, decided on 21st, December 1967.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 1st November 1967 in Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 1964 and Criminal Revision No. 407 of 1964).

S. 439‑Criminal revision, challenging acquittal of accused on one count, heard along with appeal of accused against their conviction on other charges-- High Court in disposing of appeal simultaneously dismissing revision under wrong impression that petition merely sought enhancement of sentence although in fact one of grounds in revision challenged acquittal of accused‑Dismissal of revision by High Court without hearing petitioner on merit‑Held: not correct --Special leave to appeal, however, not granted by Supreme Court because objection against such dismissal though technically correct allegations made in revision had no substance‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).

Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (A. G. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st December 1967.

‑The first and second respondents, Sheeda and Lal, were found guilty by the trial Judge under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment each. On appeal, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan upheld the conviction but reduced the sentences to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment each. At the same time, a revision petition filed in the High Court by Ghulam Haider (who is also the petitioner before us), was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.

Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi has strenuously contended before us that the learned Judge had not applied his mind to the allegations made in the revision petition and had dismissed it merely on the ground that he had, in the appeal of the convicts, reduced their sentences on the prayer of the counsel who did not want to challenge their conviction on the merits. The evidence in the case was not discussed and the impression apparently entertained by the learned Judge was that the revision petition merely asked for enhancement of the sentences of the respondents. This does not appear to be correct, as the extracts from the revision petition inserted in the grounds of petition, show that the petitioner was challenging the acquittal of the respondents on the murder charge. This aspect of the matter was not apparently present to the mind of the learned Single Judge who therefore, did not consider the facts of the case, at all.

The learned counsel is technically on strong ground when he asserts that he had a right to be heard on the merits of the case, by virtue of the allegations made in the revision petition in the High Court. But we have asked the learned counsel to state the grounds on which he thought that a case of murder could have been made out against the respondents prima facie. The trial Judge had disbelieved the so‑called eye‑witnesses of the murder and it appears to us, on cogent grounds. The only other evidence left against the respondents consisted of the evidence of their tracks found near the occurrence and the recovery of a bicycle of the deceased, at the instance of one of the respon dents, along with the recovery of a shoe belonging to the deceased. This evidence was wholly insufficient to sustain a charge of murder against the respondents. Although therefore the grievance of the petitioner may be technically correct, yes we do not find that there was any substance in the allegation, made in the revision petition.

We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order passed by the High Court and dismiss the petition for special leave to appeal.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.