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 No. 33‑R (S) of 1985, decided on 14th September, 1985.
(Against the judgment and order, dated 24‑1‑1985 of the Federal Shariat Court in Criminal Appeal No. 121/L of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 11 & 10(3)‑‑Limitation‑‑Acquittal‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against order of acquittal of accused by Federal Shariat Court barred by 33 days‑‑Explanation offered by complainant /petitioner not sufficient for obtaining leave‑‑Petitioner not pursuing matter diligently before Shariat Court and remaining unaware of date of hearing ending with decision‑‑Acquittal of accused, held, could not be jeopardised after a valuable right accrued to him‑‑Leave refused.
Q.M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Mian Nusratullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and A.‑G. Punjab for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 14th September, 1985.
The petitioner, a complainant in a case registered under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, dated 24th of January. 1985 whereby the appeal of the respondents against their conviction and sentence was accepted and they were acquitted of the charge.
The prosecution case against the respondents was that they had kidnapped Mst. Akleem Mai, the daughter of the complainant on the night between 24th and 25th of October, 1982 of which the complainant came to know only in the morning. A report about the occurrence was lodged on the 1st of November, 1982. The defence of the respondent was that Mst. Akleem was engaged to Allah Nawaz and when her parents wanted to sell her to someone else she of her own came to them and Nikah was performed of her free consent. To prove it, he produced witnesses who performed and witnessed the Nikah.
The trial Court did not believe the defence version but accepted the prosecution case and convicted the respondents under section 13 and under section 10(3) of the Ordinance.
On appeal the Federal Shariat Court believed the defence version; held that the Nikah was proved by as good evidence as could be available in the circumstances and acquitted the respondents.
This petition for leave to appeal against acquittal is shown to be barred by 33 days. There is an application seeking condonation of the delay. The only ground given is that the complainant had no notice of the date of hearing and when the respondents after acquittal came to the village, he learnt about the fact of their acquittal and immediately obtained the copy of the judgment and filed the petition for leave to appeal.
The explanation offered by the complainant is not sufficient for' obtaining leave to appeal against the acquittal. If the petitioner was not diligently pursued the matter in the Shariat Court and was unaware of the date of hearing ending with a decision of the Federal Shariat Court, the acquittal of the respondents cannot be jeopardized after a valuable right has accrued to them. Hence leave to appeal is refused.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer