SCMR 2019

2019 PLP 2063 (SCMR)

Raja FARHAT IQBAL — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1404 of 2019 in Criminal Review Nil of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2006, decided on 15th October, 2019.
Honorable Judges
Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Sajjad Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2019 PLP 2063 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Sajjad Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ
Parties Raja FARHAT IQBAL — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Supreme Court Rules, 1980
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 2063 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 2063 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Sajjad Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 2063 (SCMR) (Raja FARHAT IQBAL — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Supreme Court Rules, 1980

Representation

  • Applicant in person (assisted by Ghulam Sajjad Gopang, Advocate Supreme Court with permission of the Court)

Headnotes / Summary

(Permission to file and argue the review petition)

O. XXVI, Rr. 1 & 9

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188

Review petition before the Supreme Court, dismissal of

Subsequent application for review

Maintainability

Appeal filed by counsel for accused against his conviction before the Supreme Court was withdrawn, and consequently dismissed

Review petition filed by accused before the Supreme Court against dismissal of his appeal was also declined, and one of the main reasons for it was that accused had been released on parole by that time

Accused filed another (review) application, which was objected to by the office of the Supreme Court on the ground that after dismissal of earlier review petition, there was no occasion to entertain the request

Validity

Dismissal of review petition foreclosed avenues for subsequent attempts by the accused/applicant and for that law was well-settled

Accused/applicant could not escape the consequences of course adopted by his duly engaged counsel merely on the ground that he had not so instructed him, that too so late in the day

Application was dismissed accordingly. Applicant in person (assisted by Ghulam Sajjad Gopang, Advocate Supreme Court with permission of the Court) Nemo for the State.

Judgment & Decree

QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.

Raja Farhat Iqbal, applicant herein, accused in a case of homicide, was acquitted by the trial Court; High Court of Sindh, however, reversed the findings and while returning a guilty verdict, sentenced him to imprisonment for life, vide judgment dated 28.12.2005, vires whereof were challenged through an appeal; the complainant dissatisfied with the quantum of sentence came up with a petition for enhancement of sentence, however, without success. It was on 25-3-2009 when applicant's learned counsel opted to withdraw the appeal, consequently dismissed; his subsequent attempt to seek a review of dismissal of his appeal failed on 12.3.2019; his failures, notwithstanding, he was released on parole way back on 24.1.2015 and it was one of the reasons that weighed with the Court to decline the review. The applicant has approached in person once again and was joined by Mr. Ghulam Sajjad Gopang, ASC during the proceedings; they are aggrieved by the office refusal to entertain their application on the ground that after dismissal of earlier review petition, there was no occasion to entertain the request and it is in this backdrop that the present application (Cr. M. A. No.1404 of 2019) has been posted before us.

2. Dismissal of review petition foreclosed avenues for subsequent attempts by the applicant and for that law is well settled by now. The applicant cannot escape the consequences of course adopted by his duly engaged counsel merely on the ground that he had not so instructed him, that too so late in the day. Being hopelessly misconceived, the instant application is dismissed. MWA/F-10/SC Application dismissed.