Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition No. 162 of 1979, decided on 24th April 1979.

(On appeal from the order dated 9.4‑1979 of the Lahore High Court Lahore in Criminal Revision No. 328/BWP of 1979).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--

‑‑ Art. 185 (3)‑Leave to appeal‑Petitioner acquitted of charges at conclusion of trial but High Court after having satisfied itself admitting revision against order of acquittal to a full hearing and in exercise of discretion vested in it also issuing non‑bail able warrant against petitioner and after hearing him committing him to prison‑Revision petition against petitioner standing listed for hearing Case, in circumstances, held, not fit for interference by Supreme Court.

Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 24th April 1979.

J.

‑Muhammad Shafi petitioner was tried under section 3021328, P. P. C. for the murder of one Mst. Tabasam by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur who eventually acquitted him of the charges on the 19^th of July, 1978. Feeling dissatisfied, respondent No. 1 complainant applied to the District Magistrate for filing an appeal on behalf of the State. But the request was turned down. Thereafter, he filed a revision under section 439 Cr. P. C. in tile Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur circuit at Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid against the acquittal of the petitioner. On the 7th of April, 1979, a learned Judge of the High Court observed that Mst. Tabasam deceased was got admitted to the hospital as a suspected case of poisoning. After her death she was buried without any post‑mortem examination conducted in that con nection. This was later on pointed out by the Resident Medical Officer. On this a case was registered with the Police at the instance of Dr. Rehmat Ullah Chaudhry (P. W. 8), Medical Superintendent of the Hospital and the dead body was exhumed.. The post‑mortem examination revealed that the victim had been administered insecticide resulting in her death. On a perusal of the evidence on the record, the learned Judge in Chambers was inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the complainant that the independent testimony of P. W. 2 Dr. Abdur Rehman, P. W. 3 Muhammad Ashraf and P.W. 25 Mst. Janat was not properly appreciated by the trial Judge in acquit ting the petitioner. It was further contended that the evidence of recoveries was not properly weighed in the light of the medical evidence. It was also submitted that the strictures passed by the learned trial Court against Dr. Ali Ahmad P. W. showed that the petitioner had wielded a great influence on the course followed by the prosecution. In these circumstances the learned Judge in Chambers while admitting the revision to hearing also issued non‑bail able warrants against the petitioner returnable to District Magistrate, Bahawalpur. After hearing the petitioner in pursuance thereto on the 9th of April 1979, he committed the petitioner to prison and at the same time directed that the revision may be listed for hearing on the 20th of May 1979.

In these circumstances the petitioner has filed this petition for special leave from the order dated 9th of April 1979, committing him to prison. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no doubt that at the conclusion of his trial be was acquitted of the charges against him by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. At the same time, however, it cannot be denied that the learned Judge in Chambers after having satisfied himself admitted the revision against the order of his acquittal to a full hearing and in the exercise of the discretion vested in him under the law has also issued the non‑bail able warrant against him and after hearing the petitioner be committed him to prison. The revision petition against him stands listed for hearing on the 20th of May 1979. In these circumstances we find that this is not a fit case for our interference with the impugned order passed by the High Court on the 9th of April 1979, in exercise of the discretion vested in it under the law. This petition has no force and is therefore, rejected.

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.