Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal 20/R of 1982, decided on 1st February, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 26‑1‑1982 in Criminal Appeal 76 of 1982.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Non‑reading/misreading of evidence‑‑Appeal against acquittal dismissed with observation that principles laid down by superior Courts which had to be taken into consideration while challenging order of acquittal were not being followed‑‑Leave granted to consider question involved ‑‑Bailable warrants against respondents ordered to be issued.‑‑[ Appeal against acquittal].
P L D 1953 F C 133; P L D 1967 S C 498 and P L D 1969 S C 398 ref.
AA. Brohi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Fazal Hussain Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: Ist February, 1986.
‑By this petition Mst. Barkat Bibi seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 26‑1‑1982 passed in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 1982. This criminal appeal against the acquittal of the accused /respondent was dismissed, vide the impugned judgment. Leave is sought on the grounds that the learned High Court Judges did not evaluate the prosecution evidence and dismissed the State appeal merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises without touching the merits of the prosecution case; that the learned Judges did not apply their minds to the circumstances of the case and dismissed the State appeal merely with the observation that the State has almost made a routine to challenge every order/judgment of acquittal. It was further contended that the trial Court had also misread the prosecution evidence and acquitted the accused /respondents merely upon flimsy ground.
2. We have seen the impugned order which is to the effect that the High Court as well as the Supreme Court have laid down certain principles which have to be taken into consideration while challenging the order of acquittal. These principles are not being followed. With this observation Criminal Appeal No.76 of 1982 was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A . K . Brohi, Senior Advocate referred to P L D 1953 F C 133; P L D 1967 S C 498 and PL D1964 S C 398. We are of the opinion that the question involved needs consideration. We grant leave. Bailable warrants shall issue against the accused /respondents in the sum of rupees twenty‑five thousand with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Rawalpindi.
M.I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer