2004 PLP 215 (SCMR)
KHAN — Petitioner Versus SAJJAD and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 215 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | KHAN — Petitioner Versus SAJJAD and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 215 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 215 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 215 (SCMR) (KHAN — Petitioner Versus SAJJAD and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ihsanullah Khan Lilla, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2002.
- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have also gone through the impugned judgment carefully. Learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court decided Criminal Appeal No.698 of 1997 after attending the case from all possible dimensions during course whereof evidence so available on record was also examined and thereafter on cogent reasons formed opinion that appeal has no merits. It is to be noted that in criminal appeals filed against acquittal orders, the Appellate Courts have to exercise jurisdiction cautiously because the respondent who has been exonerated from the criminal charges, enjoys double presumption of innocence, the one available to him before conclusion of the trial and the second after the verdict of the Court declaring him not guilty and that is why it is always said that if at all the Appellate Court comes to conclusion to interfere in the acquittal order it should strictly follow the principles laid down in this behalf from time to time by superior Courts for the guidance of the Courts seized with the matter. In this context reference may be made to the judgments reported in (1) Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11, (2) Khadim Hussain v. Manzoor Hussain Shah and 3 others 2002 SCMR 261 and (3) Munawar Shah v. Liaquat Hussain and others 2002 SCMR 713.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 17-7-2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.698 of 1997).
Art.185(3)
High Court had dismissed the appeal of the complainant after examining the evidence on record and attending the case from all possible angles, giving cogent reasons
Appellate Court while dealing with acquittal order had to exercise jurisdiction cautiously because the acquitted accused enjoyed double presumption of innocence, the one available to him before conclusion of the trial and the second after the verdict of acquittal in his favour
If at all the Appellate Court decided to interfere with the acquittal order, it should strictly follow the principles laid down in this behalf from time to time by the superior Courts for the guidance of the Courts seized of the matter
Impugned order passed by High Court did not warrant/interference to appeal was declined to complainant accordingly. Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11; Khadim Hussain v. Manzoor Hussain Shah and 3 others. 2002 SCMR 261 and Munawar Shah v. Liaquat Hussain and others 2002 SCMR 713 ref.
S. 417
Principle
Appellate Courts in appeals filed against acquittal orders have to exercise jurisdiction cautiously because the accused who has been exonerated from the criminal charge enjoys double presumption of innocence, the one available to him before the conclusion of the trial and the second after the verdict of the Court declaring him not guilty
Where, however, the Appellate Court comes to conclusions to interfere in the acquittal order, it should strictly follow the, principles laid down in this behalf from lima to time by superior, Courts for guidance of the Courts seized of the matter. Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11; Khadim Hussain v. Manzoor Hussain Shah and 3 others 2002 SCMR 261 and Munawar Shah v. Liaquat Hussain and others 2002 SCMR 713 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17th July, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby criminal appeal filed- by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have also gone through the impugned judgment carefully. Learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court decided Criminal Appeal No.698 of 1997 after attending the case from all possible dimensions during course whereof evidence so available on record was also examined and thereafter on cogent reasons formed opinion that appeal has no merits. It is to be noted that in criminal appeals filed against acquittal orders, the Appellate Courts have to exercise jurisdiction cautiously because the respondent who has been exonerated from the criminal charges, enjoys double presumption of innocence, the one available to him before conclusion of the trial and the second after the verdict of the Court declaring him not guilty and that is why it is always said that if at all the Appellate Court comes to conclusion to interfere in the acquittal order it should strictly follow the principles laid down in this behalf from time to time by superior Courts for the guidance of the Courts seized with the matter. In this context reference may be made to the judgments reported in (1) Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11, (2) Khadim Hussain v. Manzoor Hussain Shah and 3 others 2002 SCMR 261 and (3) Munawar Shah v. Liaquat Hussain and others 2002 SCMR
713. Thus for the foregoing reasons, petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave declined. N.H.Q./K-60/S Leave refused.