1986 PLP 1820(1) (SCMR)
IRFAN ASHIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER, KUNDIAN NUCLEAR COMPLEX and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1820(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | IRFAN ASHIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER, KUNDIAN NUCLEAR COMPLEX and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1820(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1820(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1820(1) (SCMR) (IRFAN ASHIQ‑‑Petitioner Versus GENERAL MANAGER, KUNDIAN NUCLEAR COMPLEX and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Ahad Shaikh for Petitioner. Rao Hamid Mukhtar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑3‑1986 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 1985). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Limitation‑‑Leave granted to consider contention that appeal filed by Government was barred by time and High Court had erred in holding that it was within time.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Limitation‑‑Leave granted to consider contention that appeal filed by Government was barred by time and High Court had erred in holding that it was within time. Amjad Ahad Shaikh for Petitioner. Rao Hamid Mukhtar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1986. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 26‑3‑1986 accepting the appeal filed by the Government against the acquittal of the petitioner of the charge under section 3(3) read with sections 5(1)(A) and 5(1)(13) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the Government was barred by time and that the High Court has erred in holding that it was within time. He submitted that the Magistrate passed the order of his acquittal on 10‑8‑1981. The Government filed an application for supply of certified copy of the judgment on the same day. Copy was prepared on 20‑9‑1981 and the same was obtained by the respondent‑Government on 26‑9‑1981 and filed the appeal on the same day i.e. 26‑11‑1981. As such, it would appear that even after deducting the time consumed in obtaining the copy of the impugned judgment the appeal is barred by one day (time for filing appeal being 60 days).
3. We, therefore, think this is a fit case for grant of leave to consider the question of limitation. Ordered accordingly. M.I. Leave granted.