PCRLJ 1994

P Cr (PLP)

THE STATE — Appellant Versus GUL ZAMAN — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Federal Shariat Court
Decided Date
1993-October-28
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Federal Shariat Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties THE STATE — Appellant Versus GUL ZAMAN — Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P Cr (PLP) (THE STATE — Appellant Versus GUL ZAMAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Mian Rafquddin for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

Arts. 3, 4 & 27

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417

Appeal against acquittal

Appeal was barred by time and no explanation had been furnished for the delay

After the expiry of the period of limitation the acquitted accused had acquired a right of liberty of person which could not be taken away without any reasonable explanation

Appeal against acquittal of accused by Trial Court was dismissed as barred by time in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

NCR AHMAD BHATTI, J: -- This criminal appeal, filed by the State, challenges the judgment dated 10-11-1992 of Sessions Judge, Kohat whereby respondent Gul Zaman was acquitted of the offence under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.

2. The impugned judgment was made on 10-11-1992 and the appeal was filed on 17-3-1993. Admittedly the appeal was filed long after the statutory period of 60 days for filing the appeal in this Court. Moreover, no application for condonation of delay was presented. The appeal was admitted for hearing subject to the point of limitation. The appeal is clearly time-barred and no explanation has been furnished for the delay. After the expiry of the period of limitation the respondent acquired a right of liberty of person which right cannot be taken away without any reasonable explanation. Relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Noor Hussain v. Muhammad Salim 1985 S C M R 893, we would dismiss the appeal as barred by time. N.H.Q./890/FSC Appeal dismissed.