2013 PLP 565 (SCMR)
The STATE through Mehmood Ahmed Butt — Petitioner Versus SHARAF-UD-DIN SHEIKH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 565 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Jawwad S. Khawaja and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | The STATE through Mehmood Ahmed Butt — Petitioner Versus SHARAF-UD-DIN SHEIKH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 565 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 565 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Jawwad S. Khawaja and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 565 (SCMR) (The STATE through Mehmood Ahmed Butt — Petitioner Versus SHARAF-UD-DIN SHEIKH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.D. Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1.
- Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 16th July, 2012.
- 2. Marshaling of the facts in depth is not called for because on having gone through the relevant para of the impugned judgment, we were persuaded to question to Mr. A.D. Naseem, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents as to whether the impugned judgment being non -speaking one is sustainable in the eyes of law. No doubt, the learned High Court while dismissing the appeal applied the principle namely double presumption of innocence in view of order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. As far as the principle of double presumption of innocence is concerned, there is no cavil to it, but at the same time this principle would only be attracted, if the Court on having discussed the evidence come to the conclusion that no piece of evidence has been left out and on the basis of evidence on record, learned trial Court rightly held the accused as innocent and not involved in the commission of offence. The High Court, under the circumstances, may have considered the factual as well as legal aspects of the case before applying the principle of double presumption of innocence in favour of the respondent. In this behalf, reference may be made to Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 11), wherein this principle has been elaborately discussed and highlighted by the superior Courts.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 23-9-2010 of Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1862 of 2010).
S. 417
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Non-speaking judgment in appeal against acquittal
Effect
Appeal against acquittal of accused filed by complainant was dismissed by the High Court by observing that judgment of Trial Court was in accordance with law; that once an accused was acquitted by a competent court, double presumption of innocence was attached to the case, and that no interference was required in the judgment of Trial Court
Question was as to whether impugned judgment of High Court being a non-speaking judgment was sustainable in the eyes of law
Although while dismissing appeal against acquittal, High Court applied the principle of double presumption of innocence in view of the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, but under the circumstances of the case High Court should have considered the factual as well as legal aspects of the case before applying the said principle in favour of accused
Present case deserved to be remanded to the High Court for re-writing of judgment, keeping in view the material available on record
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and case was remanded to the High Court accordingly. Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan PLD 1985 SC 11 ref.
S. 417
Double presumption of innocence in favour of accused, principle of
Principle of double presumption of innocence would only be attracted to an appeal against acquittal, if the court on having discussed the evidence came to the conclusion that no piece of evidence had been left out, and on the basis of evidence on record, Trial Court had rightly held the accused as innocent and not involved in the commission of the offence. Applicant in person (in Criminal M.A. No.418 of 2012.).
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
This Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal has been filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against judgment dated 23-9-2010 of Lahore High Court, Lahore; concluding para therefrom reads as under:-- "We are not impressed with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have gone through the impugned judgment, which is quite in accordance with law. Moreover, when an accused is acquitted by a competent court, double presumption of innocence is attached. No case for interference by this Court in the impugned judgment is made out. This appeal stands dismissed.
2. Marshaling of the facts in depth is not called for because on having gone through the relevant para of the impugned judgment, we were persuaded to question to Mr. A.D. Naseem, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents as to whether the impugned judgment being non -speaking one is sustainable in the eyes of law. No doubt, the learned High Court while dismissing the appeal applied the principle namely double presumption of innocence in view of order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. As far as the principle of double presumption of innocence is concerned, there is no cavil to it, but at the same time this principle would only be attracted, if the Court on having discussed the evidence come to the conclusion that no piece of evidence has been left out and on the basis of evidence on record, learned trial Court rightly held the accused as innocent and not involved in the commission of offence. The High Court, under the circumstances, may have considered the factual as well as legal aspects of the case before applying the principle of double presumption of innocence in favour of the respondent. In this behalf, reference may be made to Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 11), wherein this principle has been elaborately discussed and highlighted by the superior Courts.
3. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the case in hand deserves to be remanded to the learned High Court for re-writing of the judgment, keeping in view the material available on record. Accordingly, the listed petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The case is remanded to the High Court with the observation that let the learned High Court dispose of the same expeditiously, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months. MWA/S-4/SC Case remanded.