1968 PLP (2) (SCMR)
REHMAT ELAHI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 PLP (2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REHMAT ELAHI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP (2) (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: 1968 PLP (2) (SCMR) (REHMAT ELAHI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 30th May 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 8th December 1967, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5595 of 1967).
Art. 58(3) and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXIV, r. 2‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, in criminal matter, barred by 29 days‑Ground for condonation that petitioner was heart patient and was advised rest by doctor‑Nature of ailment not showing that petitioner was incapable of giving instruction to attorney‑‑Delay not condoned.
S. 526‑Transfer of criminal cases‑Supreme Court ordinarily does not interfere with orders of High Court. Nemo for the State. JUDGMENT FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court refusing to transfer a case from Karachi to Lahore. This petition is barred by time by 29 days. In the petition for condonation of the delay, it is stated that the petitioner being a heart patient was advised by his Doctors to take complete rest and hence was unable to file the petition in time. Nature of his ailment does not show that he was incapable of giving instruction to his attorney to take necessary steps in the matter. His explanations for the delay is, therefore, not considered at all satisfactory. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this petition. It will suffice to say that in a case of this nature, this Court ordinarily does not interfere with the order of the High Court. This petition is, however, dismissed as time‑barred. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court refusing to transfer a case from Karachi to Lahore. This petition is barred by time by 29 days. In the petition for condonation of the delay, it is stated that the petitioner being a heart patient was advised by his Doctors to take complete rest and hence was unable to file the petition in time. Nature of his ailment does not show that he was incapable of giving instruction to his attorney to take necessary steps in the matter. His explanations for the delay is, therefore, not considered at all satisfactory. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this petition. It will suffice to say that in a case of this nature, this Court ordinarily does not interfere with the order of the High Court. This petition is, however, dismissed as time‑barred. Leave refused.