Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 420 of 1984, decided on Ist June, 1985

(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑11‑1984, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 556 of 1984).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Conviction under S. 302/34‑‑Application for suspension of sentence dismissed by High Court without giving elaborate reasons‑‑Order impugned‑‑Held: High Court not required in such cases to give any reason which‑may amount to expressing its view on merits of case resulting in prejudicing case of either party‑ Petition dismissed with observations for early hearing of case by High Court.

Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 1st June, 1985.

.‑‑The facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly, that Mussaddiq Hussain Shah (petitioner No. 1) and Abu Zar Hussain Shah (petitioner No. 2) were tried alongwith their respective fathers, i.e. Aulad Hussain Shah and Sabir Hussain Shah, and another for the double murder of Mst. Nasim Akhtar and Mst. Khalida Bibi. Their co‑accused was acquitted but the aforementioned 4 accused were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. Aulad Hussain Shah and Sabir Hussain were sentenced to death whereas their sons were sentenced to imprisonment for life.

They filed an appeal before the High Court which is still pending. They also made an application under section 426, Cr.P.C. for suspension of their sentences which was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned order.

The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the aforementioned interlocutory order.

2. We have heard the petitioners counsel. The only grievance is that the High Court has not given elaborate reasons and has dismissed their application with the observation that the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in fact, amounts to request for "going into the merits and scrutinizing the evidence."

3. We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel and find no force in it. The High Court is not required in such cases to give any reason which may amount. to expressing its view on merits of the case, resulting in prejudicing the case of one or the other party. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Before parting with the case it may be observed that we consider it a fit case which may be heard by the High Court at a very early date.

M. I. 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.