1971 PLP 1 (SCMR)
RAISUDDIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1971 PLP 1 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAISUDDIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 1 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 1 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 1 (SCMR) (RAISUDDIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Meser Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. R. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 17th June 1970.
- HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner was tried along with 7 others by the Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Dacca. He and six others were found guilty under section 304, Part II read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code arid were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each. They all preferred an appeal to the High Court. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the 6th of January 1970. Subsequently an application for bail was filed on the 23rd of January 1970, on behalf of four persons, not including the present petitioner. The High Court enlarged co‑accused Abu Baker on bail but rejected the application of the others. A second application for bail was made on the 20th of February 1970, in respect of four other persons, including the petitioner. This was also rejected. The petitioner alone has now come up for special leave to appeal. His application is barred by 4 days and the explanation for the delay is that although he had entrusted the papers to the learned Advocate‑on‑Record on the 13th of April 1970, he could not produce the vakalatnama attested by the Jail Authorities as required by the learned Advocate until the evening of the 17th of April 1970. Hence the petition could only be filed on the 18th of April 1970.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 20th February 1970, in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1970). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)‑Bail‑Petition for leave to appeal barred by time and reason for delay wholly uncon vincing‑Contention that High Curt before which petitioner's case awaited decision takes unduly long time to dispose of criminal appeals and it may happen that petitioner serves out his sentence before appeal is taken up‑Petitioner‑accused having been sentenced to five years, held, difficult to accept contention of appeal not being disposed of during these years‑Criminal matters normally disposed of within one year and a hay'‑Petitioner, held, would however be justified in renewing his application for bail before High Court in case it takes longer to dispose of appeal. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner was tried along with 7 others by the Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Dacca. He and six others were found guilty under section 304, Part II read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code arid were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each. They all preferred an appeal to the High Court. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the 6th of January 1970. Subsequently an application for bail was filed on the 23rd of January 1970, on behalf of four persons, not including the present petitioner. The High Court enlarged co‑accused Abu Baker on bail but rejected the application of the others. A second application for bail was made on the 20th of February 1970, in respect of four other persons, including the petitioner. This was also rejected. The petitioner alone has now come up for special leave to appeal. His application is barred by 4 days and the explanation for the delay is that although he had entrusted the papers to the learned Advocate‑on‑Record on the 13th of April 1970, he could not produce the vakalatnama attested by the Jail Authorities as required by the learned Advocate until the evening of the 17th of April 1970. Hence the petition could only be filed on the 18th of April 1970. The petitioner is lodged in the Dacca Central Jail and it is difficult, therefore, to appreciate as to how it took him four days to get the vakalatnama attested by the Jail Authorities at the Dacca Central Jail. The explanation for the delay is wholly unconvincing. There is nothing also on merits to induce us to interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court. The petitioner has already been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprison ment for five years. The sentence is, therefore, not a short sentence. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, however, contends that since the Dacca High Court now takes unduly long time to dispose of even criminal appeals, it may well happen that the petitioner will serve out his sentence before the appeal is taken up for hearing. We find it difficult to accept that a criminal appeal would not be disposed of in five years. Criminal matters are invariably given priority in the High Court and can normally be disposed of within a year or year and a half. In case it takes the Dacca High Court longer to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner, the petitioner would be justified in renewing his application for bail before the High Court on that ground. For the present, however, we see no reason to interfere. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.