2003 PLP 854 (SCMR)
AMANUEL MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 854 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | AMANUEL MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 854 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 854 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 854 (SCMR) (AMANUEL MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Amin Javaid. Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmuod A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 14th November, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal No.502 of 2000).
S. 302(b)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Petition for leave to appeal against acquittal of accused by High Court
Limitation'-- Petition was barred by 55 days
Non-receipt of any notice by the complainant from 'the High Court was not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay particularly against the judgment of acquittal-- Impugned judgment even otherwise was based on correct appraisal of evidence which had' satisfied the principles laid down by the superior Courts for safe administration of criminal justice
Leave to appeal was consequently refused to the complainant by Supreme Court on the point of limitation as well as on merits. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 14-11-2001 passed by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court. Lahore whereby appeal filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 convicts has been accepted. Their conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. set aside and they have been acquitted of the charges.
2. This petition is barred by 55 days. The only ground urged for condonation of delay is that the petitioner who was the complainant of the case on whose behalf F.I.R. was registered did not receive any notice from the High Court. We are afraid if it can be considered to be sufficient ground for condonation of delay particularly against the judgment of acquittal.
3. Even otherwise we have satisfied ourselves that the impugned judgment is based on correct appraisal of evidence which satisfy the principles laid down by the superior Courts for safe administration of criminal justice.
4. No case has been made out for condonation of delay. Application made by the petitioner for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the main petition is also dismissed as barred by time and leave refused. N.H.Q./A-256/S Leave refused