1969 PLP 82 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 82 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 82 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 82 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 82 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Abdul Waheed Khawajx, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1‑‑6.
- Date of hearing : 16th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th February 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 1967).
Art. 58 (3) and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r. 1‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against order of acquittal‑Petition barred by time‑Delay cannot be condoned unless it be shown that petitioner was precluded from filing petition in time due to some act of respondent or for some other similar compelling grounds. Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal from the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan in an acquittal matter is barred by four days. The explanation given for condonation of delay viz., that the petitioner laboured under a wrong impression that the High Court had issued notices to all the accused, but after the expiry of the period of limitation came to know that the revision petition against the respondents had been dismissed, does not constitute sufficient cause within Order XIII, rule
1. On the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation the acquittal of the respondents of charges under sections 148 and 302/ 149, P. P. C. became final and unless it was shown that the petitioner was precluded from filing the petition in time due to some act of the respondents or other similar compelling circumstance the delay will not be condoned. As no such ground is made to appear the petition is dismissed as barred by time. Leave refused.