2004 PLP 1122 (SCMR)
M. SHAHID GHAFOOR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1122 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | M. SHAHID GHAFOOR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1122 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1122 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1122 (SCMR) (M. SHAHID GHAFOOR — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Amjad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court with C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Imtiaz Ali Chaudhry, A.G. (Punjab), Wali Muhammad, A.S.I. (FIA), Faisalabad and Muhammad Rashid (Respondent No. 1) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 2002.
- 3. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have also gone through the application for condonation of delay. We are not ready to accept the explanation offered for condonation of delay in application because it is the duty of the petitioner to remain vigilant about the proceedings pending before the High Court. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgment reported as Fakhar-ud-Din v. Fazal Karim and others 1999 SCMR 795 where in it has been held that "lapse of time, in a criminal matter, is sufficient to provide protection to the accused who had been acquitted, against further judicial process trough the petition for leave to appeal". Besides, respondent No.1 has already undergone the imprisonment for about five months before passing of the order by the learned High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 28-3-2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1997).
Art. 185(3)
Petition was barred by 67 days
Condonation of delay was sought on the ground that the complainant had no knowledge about the decision of the High Court-- Explanation offered in the application was not acceptable because it was the duty of the complainant to remain vigilant about the proceedings pending before the High Court
Lapse of time in a criminal matter was sufficient to provide protection to the accused who had been acquitted, against further judicial process through the petition for leave to appeal
Besides, accused had already undergone imprisonment for about five months before passing of the order of High Court
Leave to appeal was declined to complainant in circumstances. Fakhar-ud-Din v. Fazal Karim and others 1999 SCMR 795 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 28th March 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby criminal appeal filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed and he has been acquitted.
2. This petition is barred by 67 days. Alongwith memo. of petition, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay on the ground that petitioner had no knowledge about the decision of the High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have also gone through the application for condonation of delay. We are not ready to accept the explanation offered for condonation of delay in application because it is the duty of the petitioner to remain vigilant about the proceedings pending before the High Court. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgment reported as Fakhar-ud-Din v. Fazal Karim and others 1999 SCMR 795 where in it has been held that "lapse of time, in a criminal matter, is sufficient to provide protection to the accused who had been acquitted, against further judicial process trough the petition for leave to appeal". Besides, respondent No.1 has already undergone the imprisonment for about five months before passing of the order by the learned High Court. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this petition as such the same is dismissed and leave declined. N.H.Q./M-591/S Leave refused.