Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal NO. 158 of 1967, decided on 26th February 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 6th March 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 680-A of 1966).
, AmS 58 (3) read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, a. XIII, r. 1 do D. XXI V, r. 2-Petition for Special Leave to Appeal from order of acquittal by private com plainant-Delay inn filing not to be condoned unless petitioner can show that he was actually kept out of knowledge of acquittal or was by some act of respondents- themselves kept In the dark-Petition barred by 56 days-Dismissed.
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Attorney for Petitioner.
Masud Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz All, Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th February 1968.
. -This petition has been filed by a private complainant for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore], acquitting the first six respondents herein.
These respondents had been tried along with two others in respect of charges under sections 363, 366, 368 and 376, P. P. C. by a section 30 Magistrate, Dera Ghazi Khan. The trial Magistrate discharged one, namely, Ghulam Sarwar and acquitted another, namely, Gammu but convicted the rest of the six who have all been made respondents herein. Out of these six, Mst. Aisal and Qadir Bakhsh did not file any appeal but the rest went up in appeal to the High Court. The High Court acquitted not only the 4 appellants before it but also acquitted Mst. Aisal and Oadir Bakhsh.
The complainant now seeks special leave to appeal but the petition is barred by 56 days. In the application for condonation for delay be states that as he was not a party to apeal in the high Court he had no knowledge of the acquittal until some of the respondents arrived in the village. This he says they deliberately did after some delay in order to avoid retaliation by the members of the complainant's family.
This ' s a vague statement which does not even disclose the date on which the said respondents arrived in the village. It is not possible, therefore, to place any reliance upon this statement.
In the circumstances we are unable to condone the delay. This Court has already ruled that delay in an application for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal filed by a private complainant is not to be condoned unless it can be shown that the person seeking leave was actually kept out of knowledge of the acquittal and/or prevented by some act of the respondents themselves from coming in time. This has not been established in the present case. This petition is accordingly dismissed as being barred by time.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer