1997SCMR 1339 (PLP)
Syed GHAFFAR SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ATA JAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997SCMR 1339 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Manzoor Hussain Sial and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Syed GHAFFAR SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ATA JAN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997SCMR 1339 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997SCMR 1339 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Manzoor Hussain Sial and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997SCMR 1339 (PLP) (Syed GHAFFAR SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ATA JAN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 22‑6‑1994 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Criminal Revision No.90 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 324 & 323‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal by State dismissed as barred by time‑‑‑Complainant filing revision against acquittal of accused‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether after dismissal of appeal against acquittal filed by the State by the High Court, revision could be filed competently by the complainant or not.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.‑‑‑Respondent No.1. Ata Jan, armed with knife and his two accomplices armed with Dandas allegedly attacked and caused injuries to the petitioner and his son and in the result respondent No. l and Syed Abdul Karim Shah were put on trial for offences under sections 323 and 324, P.P.C while one co‑accused, namely, ‑Sardar Shah absconded. Trial Court convicted them for offence under section 324, P.P.C and sentenced them to R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.5,000 or in default R.I. for six months and under section 323, P. P. C sentenced them to R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.1,000 or in default R.I. for three months. Appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court for recording of defence evidence. After remand, the trial Court acquitted respondent No. 1.
2. Petitioner challenged acquittal through Criminal Revision No.1 of 1993, which was dismissed by the High Court vide order, dated 17th January, 1993 on the ground that it was incompetent and was filed without moving the Provincial Government for filing acquittal appeal as contemplated under section 417, Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the Government filed Criminal Appeal No.34 of 1993 with an application for condonation of delay but the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 4th November, 1993. Petitioner then filed Criminal Revision No.90 of 1993 for having acquittal order set aside but the same was dismissed on the ground that after dismissal of acquittal appeal, revision filed by the complainant was barred under 'the law.
3. Leave is granted to examine whether after dismissal of acquittal appeal, revision can be filed competently by the complainant or not. N.H.Q./G‑530/S Leave granted.