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 No. 32‑R(S) of 1983, decided on 2nd November, 1983.
(Against the judgment of Federal Shariat Court in Appeal No. 125/L, dated 23‑6‑1983).
‑‑‑-Arts. 203‑F & 203‑DD‑Leave to appeal‑Contention that Federal Shariat Court, being possessed of revisional jurisdiction under Art. 203‑DD, in case it held that appeal of petitioner was not competent, it should have treated appeal as revision and dealt with that‑Record showing nothing to suggest that in fact such contention was raised before Federal Shariat Court at any stage of proceedings or even otherwise considered by that Court‑Petitioner, if wanted such contention to be examined, should formally move Federal Shariat Court in accordance with law relating to revisional jurisdiction Petition for leave to appeal dismissed with such observations.
Q. M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry (absent) Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing : 2nd November, 1983.
The‑petitioner who is the father of the prosecutrix, seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Shariat Court dated 23rd June, 1983 dismissing as incompetent a criminal appeal filed by him against the acquittal of respondent of charges under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979.
The learned counsel for the petitioner does not seek a reconsideration of the decision of this Court in Muhammad Riaz Ahmad v. Ajmal Hussain (PLD1983 S C 233). The law laid down therein has been followed by the Federal Shariat Court in holding the appeal of the petitioner as incompetent. He does not question on merits the propriety of the order passed by the Federal Shariat Court and impugned by him. His contention, however, is that the Federal Shariat Court was possessed of the revisional jurisdiction under Article 203‑DD of the Constitution and in case it held that the appeal was not competent, it should have treated the appeal as a revision and dealt with it as such.
We do not find anything on the record to suggest that in fact such a request was made by the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings before the Federal Shariat Court or even otherwise considered by it. If the petitioner wants this contention to be examined he should formally move the Federal Shariat Court in accordance with the law relating to revisional jurisdiction. With these observations, leave to appeal is refused and the petition dismissed.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer