2003 PLP 407 (SCMR)
ADIL BASHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 407 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ADIL BASHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 407 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 407 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Tanvir Ahmad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 407 (SCMR) (ADIL BASHIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 2002.
- 3. Heard Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner who, infer alia, contended that merits of the case should have been examined by the learned. High Court and in absence whereof the application preferred under section 426, Cr.P.C. could not have been disposed of which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. At this juncture it is to be noted that petitions bearing Nos.86‑L to 89‑L of 2002 involving the identical question of law have been rejected by this Court with the following observations:‑‑
- "After having a careful scrutiny of the entire record and the authorities referred to .in the above reproduced order we are not persuaded to agree with Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner that it was mandatory, obligatory and bounden duty of the learned High Court to have examined the case on merits and should have dilated upon the contentions as agitated in depth while deciding application under section 426, Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that it is well entrenched legal position that appraisal of evidence in depth is neither warranted nor desirable while dilating upon and deciding such f application. A Court should confine itself to the judgment assailed before it. A thorough scrutiny of evidence and its evaluation should be made while adjudicating upon the appeal as it would be opportune moment for doing so and not while deciding the application moved under section 426, Cr.P.C. as it would be a premature stage. A conviction cannot be set aside while exercising jurisdiction as conferred under section 426, Cr.P.C. on the grounds with reference to evidence and merits of the case which certainly require a thorough probe and deeper scrutiny of evidence which should be avoided. It is well‑settled by now that 'the discretion has to be exercised judiciously by considering the relevant facts without entering or commenting upon the merits of the case. If the contention raised, requires consideration of merits, the Appellate Court would refrain from entertaining such contentions. At this stage, the Court cannot enter into a re‑appraisal of evidence which should be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. Where on perusal of the facts in the judgment impugned, the Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment suffers from any legal error, it would be justified to suspend the sentence and grant the bail. In this regard the reasonable and legal views expressed by the trial Court should be given due consideration and weight, but all attempts should be made neither to reappraise the evidence not to enter into the merits of the case. (Bashir Ahmad v. Zulfiqar PLD 1992 SC 463, Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1971 SCMR 183, Noor Abdullah and another v. The State 1981 SCMR 859, Jamshed Azam v. The State 1990 SCMR 1393)."
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 21‑3‑2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2 of 2002 in Criminal Appeal No.933 of 2001). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 426‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑While dilating upon and deciding an application under S. 426, Cr.P.C. appraisal of evidence in depth is neither warranted nor desirable‑‑‑Court in this regard should confine itself to the judgment assailed before it giving due consideration and weight to the reasonable and legal views expressed by the Trial Court, but all attempts should be made neither to reappraise the evidence nor to enter into the merits of the case. Petitions Nos.86‑L to 89‑L of 2002; Bashir Ahmad v. Zulfiqar PLD 1992 SC 463; Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1971 SCMR 183; Noor Abdullah and another v. The State 1981 SCMR 859 and Jamshed Azam v. The State 1990 SCMR 1393 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑High Court had dismissed the petition of accused for suspension of his sentence on the ground that the grounds urged in support of the petition required. deeper appreciation of evidence which could only be done at the time of hearing the appeal‑‑‑High Court had exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with the settled norms of justice which warranted no interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was declined to accused by Supreme Court in circumstances. Petitions Nos.86‑L to 89‑L of 2002; Bashir Ahmad v. Zulfiqar PLD 1992 SC 463; Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1971 SCMR 183; Noor Abdullah and another v. The State 1981 SCMR 859 and Jamshed Azam v. The State 1990 SCMR 1393 ref. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 21‑3‑2002 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Criminal Miscellaneous No.2 of 2002 submitted for suspension of sentence of 14 years awarded to the petitioner vide judgment dated 4‑12‑2001 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif has been dismissed.
2. After having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record it was observed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court as follows:‑‑ "The statement of the petitioner under section 342, Cr.P.C., examined in the context of evidence of the P.Ws. prima facie establishes that the petitioner has murdered Riaz Shah. The grounds urged in support of this petition relate to deeper appreciation of evidence which can only be examined at the time of hearing of the appeal. This petition has no merit and is dismissed."
3. Heard Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner who, infer alia, contended that merits of the case should have been examined by the learned. High Court and in absence whereof the application preferred under section 426, Cr.P.C. could not have been disposed of which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. At this juncture it is to be noted that petitions bearing Nos.86‑L to 89‑L of 2002 involving the identical question of law have been rejected by this Court with the following observations:‑‑ "After having a careful scrutiny of the entire record and the authorities referred to .in the above reproduced order we are not persuaded to agree with Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner that it was mandatory, obligatory and bounden duty of the learned High Court to have examined the case on merits and should have dilated upon the contentions as agitated in depth while deciding application under section 426, Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that it is well entrenched legal position that appraisal of evidence in depth is neither warranted nor desirable while dilating upon and deciding such f application. A Court should confine itself to the judgment assailed before it. A thorough scrutiny of evidence and its evaluation should be made while adjudicating upon the appeal as it would be opportune moment for doing so and not while deciding the application moved under section 426, Cr.P.C. as it would be a premature stage. A conviction cannot be set aside while exercising jurisdiction as conferred under section 426, Cr.P.C. on the grounds with reference to evidence and merits of the case which certainly require a thorough probe and deeper scrutiny of evidence which should be avoided. It is well‑settled by now that 'the discretion has to be exercised judiciously by considering the relevant facts without entering or commenting upon the merits of the case. If the contention raised, requires consideration of merits, the Appellate Court would refrain from entertaining such contentions. At this stage, the Court cannot enter into a re‑appraisal of evidence which should be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. Where on perusal of the facts in the judgment impugned, the Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment suffers from any legal error, it would be justified to suspend the sentence and grant the bail. In this regard the reasonable and legal views expressed by the trial Court should be given due consideration and weight, but all attempts should be made neither to reappraise the evidence not to enter into the merits of the case. (Bashir Ahmad v. Zulfiqar PLD 1992 SC 463, Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1971 SCMR 183, Noor Abdullah and another v. The State 1981 SCMR 859, Jamshed Azam v. The State 1990 SCMR 1393)."
4. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and in accordance with settled norms of justice warranting no interference. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑273/S ???????? Leave refused.