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.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 20‑D of 1970, decided on 18th June 1970.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 2nd March 1970, in Criminal Revision Case No. 181 of 1970).
------S. 435‑Revision Limitation‑Person, on dismissal of his appeal by Sessions Judge, not surrendering himself to authorities and after delay of 9 months filing revision petition along with application for condonation of delay Petition, held, rightly dismissed summarily by High Court Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
M. Behtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 18th June 1970.
‑The petitioner was convicted under sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under each count. The sentences were to run concurrently. He was also fined Rs. 500 and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge 3rd Court, Mymensingh maintained the conviction of the petitioner under both the sections 457 and 380 of the Code and also maintained the sentence of 2 years' rigorous imprisonment under section 457, but refused to award any separate sentence under section 380 of the Code. Moreover, the fine of Rs. 500 was reduced by him to Rs. 300. The appellate Court's judgment was delivered on the 4th June 1969. About nine months thereafter, that is, on the 2nd March 1970, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court with an application for condonation of delay. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, however, dismissed the criminal revision summarily on the ground limitation, We ourselves have looked into the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court, but found that the grounds for delay stated therein are hardly reasonable. The petitioner should have surrendered to undergo the imprisonment after the dismissal of his appeal on the 4th June 1969, but he did not surrender until the 26th February 1970. No explanation was offered by him as to why he avoided the process of law. We do not think that this is a fit case for our interference. The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer