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 of Special Leave to Appeal No. 110 of 1986, decided on 22nd June, 1986.,
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑3‑1986 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Limitation‑‑Leave granted to consider contention that appeal filed by Government was barred by time and High Court had erred in holding that it was within time.
Amjad Ahad Shaikh for Petitioner. Rao Hamid Mukhtar for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1986.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 26‑3‑1986 accepting the appeal filed by the Government against the acquittal of the petitioner of the charge under section 3(3) read with sections 5(1)(A) and 5(1)(13) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the Government was barred by time and that the High Court has erred in holding that it was within time.
He submitted that the Magistrate passed the order of his acquittal on 10‑8‑1981. The Government filed an application for supply of certified copy of the judgment on the same day. Copy was prepared on 20‑9‑1981 and the same was obtained by the respondent‑Government on 26‑9‑1981 and filed the appeal on the same day i.e. 26‑11‑1981. As such, it would appear that even after deducting the time consumed in obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment the appeal is barred by one day (time for filing appeal being 60 days).
3. We, therefore, think this is a fit case for grant of leave to consider the question of limitation. Ordered accordingly.
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