1971 PLP 513 (SCMR)
REHMAT ALI alias LUNDA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1971 PLP 513 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Sajjad Ahmad and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | REHMAT ALI alias LUNDA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 513 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 513 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Sajjad Ahmad and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 513 (SCMR) (REHMAT ALI alias LUNDA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. R. Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 1st July 1971.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated the 30th December 1970, in Criminal Revision No. 1320 of 1970). Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXIV, r. 2‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal‑Review in criminal proceedings‑Petition barred by time but petitioner claiming exclusion of time taken by review petition in High Court‑Held, review not admissible in criminal proceedings and as such petitioner could not claim exclusion of time taken in disposal of application not maintainable in law. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This petition is barred by 47 days. The petitioner filed his revision in the High Court against his convic tions and sentences under sections 458 and 307, P. P. C. which was dismissed on the 30th of December 1970. He then applied for a review of the High Court's judgment passed in revision. The review application was not pressed, as the learned counsel appearing for him admitted that it was not maintainable. The review petition was, therefore, dismissed on the 15th of February 1971. The present petition for leave to appeal was filed on the 25th of March 1971.. The petitioner claims the exclusion of time, which was spent by him for obtaining a copy of the judgment of the High Court made in his review application, claiming further that the date of the disposal of his review petition gives him the starting point of limitation for the present petition for leave to appeal. Review is not admissible in criminal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It seems that, by filing a review petition and getting it dismissed, the petitioner merely resorted to a ruse to create a fresh starting point for himself for coming to this Court. Such an exercise must be condemned. This petition being hopelessly time‑barred, is dismissed' as such. Petition dismissed as time‑barred.