1987 PLP 569 (SCMR)
ZAMARUD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 569 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | ZAMARUD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 569 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 569 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 569 (SCMR) (ZAMARUD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 16‑4‑1986 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1986). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Offences in Respect of Banks (Special) Courts Ordinance (IX of 1984), S. 5(4)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.471‑‑Conviction based on exculpatory statement of co‑accused ‑Proceedings in absentia‑ Dismissal of appeal as time‑barred, challenged‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider the following pleas: That as the proceedings against the petitioner were conducted ex parte in his absence and without any notice having been received by him the entire proceedings were void ab initio; and the Presiding Officer of the Special Court had no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner in his absence without first holding that the conditions laid down in S.5(4) zf Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984) were fulfilled in this case; that the case against the petitioner was one of no evidence: and as a bare perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court would show his conviction has been based on the exculpatory statement of co‑accused who was himself acquitted; that no conviction can be based on the statement of the co‑accused as it was exculpatory as regards himself, and further, even if he had also involved himself, it would not have the quality of evidence and was only a matter to be taken into consideration to corroborate other evidence which had by itself to be legally sufficient to sustain a conviction; that the High Court erred in not even considering the merits of the case before dismissing the appeal in limine on the sole ground of limitation; and that as the proceedings against the petitioner were ex parte and he was not aware of the same, his appeal could not be barred by limitation; and in any case this was a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 13th May, 1986. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court, dated 16‑4‑1986 by which petitioner's appeal was dismissed as barred by time. Petitioner's appeal was directed against the judgment of the Judge, Special Court of Sind, dated 13‑12‑1985 by which he was convicted in absentia under section 471, P.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.100,
000. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo learned counsel appearing in support of the petition inter alia raised the following pleas in support of the petition (a) That as the proceedings against the petitioner were conducted ex parte in his absence and without any notice having been received by him the entire proceedings were void ab initio; and the learned Presiding Officer of the Special Court had no jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner in his absence without first holding that the conditions laid down in section 5(4) of the Ordinance were fulfilled in this case. (b) That the case against the petitioner was one of no evidence; and as a bare perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would show his conviction has been based on the exculpatory statement of co‑accused Shafiqur Rehman who was himself acquitted. (c) That no conviction can be based on the statement of the co‑accused as it was exculpatory as regards himself, and further, even if he had also involved himself, it would not have the quality of evidence and was only a matter to be taken into consideration to corroborate other evidence which had by itself to be legally sufficient to sustain a conviction. (d) That the learned Judges in the High Court erred in not even considering the merits of the case before dismissing the appeal in limine on the sole ground of limitation. (e) That as the proceedings against the petitioner were ex parte and he was not aware of the same, his appeal could not be barred by limitation; and in any case this was a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The submissions advanced in support of the petition deserve consideration. We, therefore, grant the leave and allow the petition. Pending final disposal of the appeal the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall stands suspended and he shall be released on bail on furnishing one surety of Rs.70,000 (seventy thousand only) and executing personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the High Court. M.I./Z‑1/S Leave granted.