1989 PLP 2056 (SCMR)
SHER MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus REVENUE OFFICER and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2056 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --- Expression "benefit of doubt"--Interpretation--Expression "benefit of doubt" means both the possibilities in law: one, that the accused was guilty and the other equal possibility that he was not guilty--Words and phrases. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | SHER MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus REVENUE OFFICER and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal trial |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2056 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal trial as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2056 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --- Expression "benefit of doubt"--Interpretation--Expression "benefit of doubt" means both the possibilities in law: one, that the accused was guilty and the other equal possibility that he was not guilty--Words and phrases. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2056 (SCMR) (SHER MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus REVENUE OFFICER and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.S. Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Manzoor Ilahi Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing, 23rd May, 1989.
- M.S. Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Manzoor Ilahi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-4-1988 of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No.III(L)/83).
Expression "benefit of doubt"--Interpretation--Expression "benefit of doubt" means both the possibilities in law: one, that the accused was guilty and the other equal possibility that he was not guilty--[Words and phrases]. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art.212(3)--Contention that after having held the action against the petitioner illegal and nullity in the eyes of law the Tribunal should not have withheld the consequential benefits--Tribunal found some procedural defects in departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner and accepting the appeal did not remand the case for fresh inquiry instead remarked that charges of inefficiency and misconduct "would not be considered to have been proved beyond doubt"- Held, there were two possibilities: One to accept the appeal and remand the case for fresh trial on the same charge and the other that in view of the nature of the charges petitioner should not be put to re-trial which might take a long time in circumstances--Petitioner should have felt satisfied with the order of Tribunal- Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑In this leave to appeal petition a successful appellant before the Federal Service Tribunal (his appeal against dismissal was allowed), has challenged the impugned order for modification of the following dircction:‑ "We, therefore, set aside the impugned order‑‑without consequential benefits." Learned counsel has contended that after having held that the action against the petitioner was illegal and thus was nullity in the eyes of law "the Tribunal should not have withheld the consequential benefits". The controversy is not as simple as put by the learned counsel. The learned Members of the Tribunal found some procedural defects in the departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner. It might have been a good case for acceptance of the appeal for remand of the case for fresh inquiry. However, presumably keeping in view the nature of the charges against the petitioner such a direction was not thought necessary. Instead it was remarked that the charges of inefficiency and misconduct "would not be considered to have been proved beyond doubt". Having rendered this finding which meant both the possibilities in law: One, that the petitioner was guilty and the other equal possibility that he was not guilty (that is the interpretation of expression "benefit of doubt"); it was perhaps inapt, in the context of the present case, to have gone to the extent of using the word "nullity". The legal import of the words and expression: "benefit of doubt" and "nullity" was not properly comprehended. In this background there are two possibilities: One, to accept the petitioner's grievance and while allowing his appeal remand the case for his fresh trial on the same charges and the other that to view of the nature of the charges he should not be put to this re‑trial which might take a long time. That being so, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner should have felt satisfied with the order of reinstatement. M.A.K./S‑312/5 Leave refused.