SCMR 1985

1985 PLP 893 (SCMR)

NOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALIM‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.18 of 1980, decided on 10th January, 1984.
Honorable Judges
Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1985 PLP 893 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ
Parties NOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALIM‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 893 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 893 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 893 (SCMR) (NOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALIM‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

Representation

  • Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Ejaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th January, 1984.
  • 2. Noor Hussain complainant has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against their acquittal. The petition is, however, barred by time by one day. The petitioner's counsel has not been able to explain the delay satisfactorily It appears that the learned Advocate‑on Record neglected to file the petition promptly after obtaining the copy of the A impugned judgment. Notwithstanding the fact that the delay is only of one day, we do not consider it a fit case for condonation of the delay as Muhammad Salim son of Muhammad Ramzan (respondent No.1) has acquired the right to live, while others have acquired the valuable right of liberty.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 20‑11‑1979, passed in Criminal Appeal No.377/79 and M.R. No.116/1979). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417‑‑Murder‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑ Petition time‑barred by one day‑‑Accused acquiring right to live and valuable right of liberty‑‑Delay not explained satisfactorily‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed as barred by time.‑

Judgment & Decree

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal of the respondents who were tried for offences under section 302/148/149, P.P.C., by the learned trial Court which convicted them for the said offences and sentenced Muhammad Salim son of Muhammad Ramzan, to death and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default R.I. for five years, while it sentenced the remaining respondents to imprison ment for life and a fine of Rs.3,000 each or in default further R.I. for one year each under section 302/149, P.P.C. It also sentenced all of them under section 148/149 to 2 years, R.I. each. The convicts filed an appeal before the High Court which acquitted all of them vide the impugned judgment.

2. Noor Hussain complainant has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against their acquittal. The petition is, however, barred by time by one day. The petitioner's counsel has not been able to explain the delay satisfactorily It appears that the learned Advocate‑on Record neglected to file the petition promptly after obtaining the copy of the A impugned judgment. Notwithstanding the fact that the delay is only of one day, we do not consider it a fit case for condonation of the delay as Muhammad Salim son of Muhammad Ramzan (respondent No.1) has acquired the right to live, while others have acquired the valuable right of liberty. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as barred by time. S. Q. Petition dismissed,