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. K‑44 of 1968, decided on 9th. January 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 7th August 1966, in Confirmation Case No. 13 of 1967/Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1967).
Art. 58(3) read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXIV, r. 2‑Delay in filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal by complainant in criminal proceedings Mere fact that petitioner did not come to know of the impugned order in time‑No ground fur condonation.
Abdul Qayyum v. Ghulam Yasin P L D 1963 S C 151 ; The State v. Muhammad Nawaz and others P L D 1966 S C 481 and Mst. Rabia Bibi v. Rasool Bakhsh and others P L D 1966 S C 531 ref:
Jamal H. Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
Kazi Akhtar Ahmad, Additional Advocate‑General West Pakistan (Sharaf Faridi, Advocate Supreme Court) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.
Date of hearing : 9th January 1969.
This petition for leave to appeal by a private complainant against the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court is barred by 21 days.
The explanation given in the application for extension o time is that the petitioner did not come to know of the impugned order of the high Court in time. This ground, however, does A not constitute sufficient cause in an acquittal matter as held in P L D 1963 S C 151, P L D 1966 S C 481 and P L D 1966 S C 531.
The impugned order by the High Court was passed on 7‑8‑1968 and the period prescribed for moving the petition for special leave to appeal against it expired on 6‑9‑1968. The present petition was moved on 21‑9‑1968 after the expectation of life held out by the High Court to two of the respondents who were sentenced to death by the trial Court and reversal of the sentences of transportation for life awarded to the rest of the accused had become final. To put the life or liberty of an accused person again into jeopardy it must be shown that in some manner the accused them selves are responsible for the delay in moving this Court in time. No such ground is raised in this petition.
The petition is accordingly dismissed as barred by time.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer