1969 PLP 311 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 311 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and M. R. Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 311 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 311 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and M. R. Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 311 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sher Alam Mina, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 11th April 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 10th January 1969, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58 of 1969).
r. 1‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal barred by time‑No application for condonation of delay‑Leave refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sher Alam Mina, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 11th April 1969. M. R. KHAN, J.‑The petitioner is one of the accused persons in a case under sections 302, 307 and 325, read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The case is still at the enquiry stage tie moved an application for bail in the High Court of West Pakistan Lahore, but a learned Single Judge of that Court dismissed the application on 15‑5‑1968. Then on 4‑1‑1969, the petitioner made another application for bail in the High Court, but the same learned Single Judge by his order, dated 10‑1‑69 dismissed this application in limine. The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the learned Judge's order dismissing his second bail application. The petition for special leave to appeal is out of time by 21 days. An application has been made for condonation of this delay. It is stated in this application that the petitioner's mother's cousin Maulvi Shah Muhammad who was looking after the petitioners bail matter went away to a different village to mourn the death of his niece Mst. Faiz Mahi and that on his return, he was taking care of his another niece Mst. Aksiran whose foot joint was fractured. For these reasons, Maulvi Shah Muhammad, it is alleged, could not give instructions to the counsel before 28‑3‑1968. This High Court dismissed the petitioner's second bail application on 10‑1‑1969, and the petition for special leave to appeal was made on 19‑3‑1969. Therefore, the giving of instruc tions by Maulvi Shah Muhammad to the counsel on 28‑3‑1968 for filing a petition for special leave to appeal is an impossibility on a fact of it. It is curious that the date, namely, 28‑3‑68 has been expressly mentioned in both the applications for condonation of delay and the affidavit of Maulvi Shah Muhammad although the bail application was dismissed by the High Court on 10‑1‑
69. The carelessness speaks for itself. Moreover, it is not stated in the affricative the exact date of the alleged death of a niece of the deponent and exact date of the injury said to have been sustained by his another niece. The petitioner is bound to explain every day s delay which he has failed to explain. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as barred by time. Leave refused