1988 P Cr (PLP)

RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN, C.J.--This review petition rolled in by Muhammad Akbar, petitioner, seeks reversal of the judgment passed by this Court on 17th of February, 1988, whereby the order of the Shariat Court dated 26-8-1987 in allowing bail to Sher Alam and maintaining the order of the District Criminal Court in allowing bail to Shakoor Alam, for the murder of one Baqa Muhammad, resident of village Dothan, Tehsil Rawalakot, was maintained.

2. The review petition arises in the following circumstances: The parties are refugees and there has been litigation between them regarding the possession of land comprising Survey Nos. 728/ 656/387 situated in village Dothan, District Poonch. The accused party after obtaining a decision in their favour from the High Court approached the Rehabilitation Authority (A . R . C .) for the ejectment of Baqa Muhammad and others. The A.R.C. issued a notice to the persons concerned as to why they should not be ejected from the land in dispute, but they failed to appear before him. Consequently a warrant ordering the ejectment of the unauthorised occupants was issued on 5-5-1987. On 7-5-1987 the concerned 'Girdawar' alongwith two Constables; namely, Liaqat Ali and Sadiq, arrived at the disputed piece of land for the execution of warrant issued by the A.R.C. Baqa Muhammad, who resided at a small distance from the land in dispute, was already present in the land and was sowing maize seed therein. On the arrival of Muhammad Yusuf and others, Baqa Muhammad told them not to disturb the status quo because Akbar alias Akoo had gone to secure a stay regarding the ejectment. Meanwhile a quarrel ensued between the parties and, according to the prosecution case, Muhammad Yusuf, appellant, gave a severe blow on the head of the deceased, Baqa Muhammad, with the blunt side of a 'Ranbi', while Sher Alam inflicted a stick blow to Baqa Muhammad on the left side of his head. As a result of the aforesaid blows the victim of the assault fell down on the ground and Sher Alam and Shakoor Alam, accused, gave further stick blows on the other part of his body. The women-folk belonging to the complainant party reached the spot so as to prevent the accused persons from giving further beating to Baqa Muhammad and they were also given beating by the accused persons. The Police after investigation challaned the accused under section 5 of the Islamic Penal Laws Act and section 307, A.P.C., read with section 34 A.P.C. All the three accused sought their bail from the District Criminal Court; Shakoor Alam, respondent, was granted bail by the District Criminal Court, while Muhammad Yusuf and Sher Alam were refused the same. An appeal by Muhammad Yusuf and Sher Alam to the Shariat Court partly succeeded and Sher Alam, respondent, was also granted bail while Muhammad Yusuf was refused the same.

3. Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of non-petitioners, seeks rejection of the review petition for its being filed beyond the period of limitation. His case is that there exists no sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the review petition. The review petition is filed practically 45 days beyond the limitation. Condonation of delay, however, is prayed on the ground that the petitioner became seriously ill after obtaining the copy of the judgment and remained so till 26-4 1988 which fact hampered him to file the review petition in time. The illness of the petitioner, which is supported by a certificate of Dr. Nazir, according to Raja Akram, provides sufficient ground for condonation of delay.

5. After giving our best consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar, looking into the certificate issued by a doctor and the statement of the petitioner recorded today, we have come to the conclusion that this review petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to follow.

6. In his statement recorded today the petitioners says that he fell ill sixteen days after the receipt of the copy of the judgment and remained as an indoor patient for 1? months in C.M.H. Rawalakot. The explanation in the application for condonation of delay and one putforth today by the petitioner in his statement, does not appear to be satisfactory In the first instance the affidavit and the application do not disclose that a certificate showing the petitioner as ill was ever issued to him by any doctor which was in his possession at the time of filing the petition and he omitted to bring the certificate with him to be appended with the review petition; secondly the certificate issued by Dr. Nazir, enters that the petitioner was treated as an outdoor patient and advised rest while in his statement the petitioner says that he remained as an indoor patient for 1? months in Rawalakot Hospital. It would, thus, appear that the statement and the application for condonation being mutually destructive, do not inspire confidence to be believed. This self-contradictory material makes the whole affair doubtful.

7. In the circumstances, the explanation put forth in the condonation application and the statement recorded, both lose all evidence to be believed. Additionally the petitioner does not explain away as to what hampered him not to move the review petition for sixteen days after the receipt of the copy of the judgment during which, according to his own statement, he was well. If a person having the knowledge of limitation, as the case is before us, without sufficient cause sleeps over the matter and allows to run out the period of limitation, he cannot afterwards seek the indulgence of the Court for condonation of delay. As said earlier, there is nothing on record to convince us as to why they petitioner failed to file the review petition within the period of sixteen days when. according to his own say. he was all well during this period.

8. On the above premises, we find that no sufficient cause has been made out warranting indulgence of the Court to condone the delay. Review petitions filed beyond the period of limitation provided under law are not entertainable unless sufficient cause for condonation is shown to the satisfaction of the Court. The petitioner kept sleeping over the matter at least for a period of sixteen days after he was supplied the copy of the judgment. The instant case in fact, depicts a classical example of negligence for which no concession or allowance can be given to the petitioner. The argument of Raja Muhammad Akram Khan that sixteen days were spent by the petitioner in going to Rawalpindi and contacting Sardar Rabnawaz Khan Advocate who originally represented the petitioner in appeal has no substance because such a plea has not been taken by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay.

9. Even on merits we do not find any justifiable ground to allow this review petition. In support of this review petition the only contention raised by Raja Muhammad Akram Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the 'Sota', the weapon of offence in the hands of Sher Alam, may be sent for to know its breadth. This argument, even if accepted, does not furnish a ground for the review petition because the point was elaborately discussed and disallowed by the Court in observing:? "The recovery memo of the stick used by Sher Alam shows that the same is about 3 feet 4 inches long; the breadth of the same has not been recorded in the recovery memo. Besides, after perusing the post-mortem report we come to the conclusion that until and unless the statement of Doctor is recorded, it cannot be definitely said at this stage that the stick blow attributed to Sher Alam also contributed to the fracture of the skull of the deceased. In the aforesaid view of the matte, we are constrained to observe that the discretion exercised by the Shariat Court in favour of Sher Alam cannot be said to be perverse, capricious or violative of the settled law on the subject."

10. So far the case of Shakoor Alam, non-petitioner, is concerned, the matter was disposed of on the ground that the learned counsel conceded in the appeal that he does not contest the order granting bail to Shakoor Alam. We wonder why the review petition to assail bail granting order to Shakoor Alam is moved. For the above-stated reasons, the review petition stands rejected. M.B.A./227/S.C.A.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.