P L D 1963 Supreme Court 151 (PLP)
ABDUL QAYYUM‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM YASIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1963 Supreme Court 151 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and B. Z. Kaikaus, J |
| Parties | ABDUL QAYYUM‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM YASIN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1963 Supreme Court 151 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1963 Supreme Court 151 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and B. Z. Kaikaus, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1963 Supreme Court 151 (PLP) (ABDUL QAYYUM‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM YASIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Anwar Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shabir Husain Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th February 1963.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 18th October 1962, in Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 1962). Special leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑--(,Criminal case) Petition delayed by 15 days‑Delay riot condoned ‑ (Petition seeking enhancement of sentence of transportation for life to capital punishment) ‑ (Grounds advanced : misinformation about period of limitation and wife's illness.)
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.‑Although this is a petition in a criminal case, the fact that it is out of time by 15 days cannot be condoned. It seeks enhancement of a punishment of transportation for life awarded in a murder case, to the capital punishment. The convict might be placed, once again, in peril of his life, by a petition of this kind, and it is for this reason that the technical requirement of limitation assumes importance. It is not too much to ask that he who seeks to place his fellow‑citizen's life is, peril, by legal process, should satisfy all the technical requirements of that process. Delay would scarcely ever be condoned, and certainly not on the grounds here advanced, namely, that the petitioner was misinformed about the period of limitation, and that he was delayed in his village through the serious illness of his wife. The petition is dismissed as barred by time. A. H. Petition dismissed.