2014SAC8033 (PLP)
N/A
| Citation | 2014SAC8033 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014SAC8033 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014SAC8033 (PLP)?
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: 2014SAC8033 (PLP) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ----Art. 60(13)---Supreme Appellate Court Rules, 2008, O.V, R.1(7)---Time barred petition for leave to appeal against acquittal---Delay, condonation of---Trial Court acquitted all accused persons, and appeal against acquittal was dismissed by the Chief Court---Validity---Petition was time-barred by about seventeen days---Application for condonation of delay was filed---Office of Supreme Appellate Court, raised certain objections---Said petition, after removal of the objections by the office, was required to be resubmitted within period not exceeding six weeks as contemplated under O. V, R. 1(7) of Supreme Appellate Court Rules, 2008, but same was resubmitted with the delay of about two months and twenty six days---Advocate-on-Record, did not adhere to the relevant legal provisions---Resubmission of the petition as well as the submission of petition itself was delayed by seventeen days---Petition being leave to appeal against acquittal, valuable right had accrued to the accused persons, which could not be taken away, because of the lapse on part of the State---Application for condonation of delay, had no ground for condonation---Petition and application for condonation of delay were dismissed, in circumstances.
- Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan.
- 4. The learned Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan has been heard at a considerable length.
- 5. Mr. Ali Nazar Advocate-on-Record, had presented this petition on 22-1-2013. It is pertinent to mention over here that the instant petition was time bared by about Seventeen days. An application for condonation of delay was also filed. The office on receipt of the Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal raised the following objections:-
- "(i) The instant petition is not signed by Advocate-General.
- (ii) The concise statement signed by Advocate-on-Record is found duplicate as well as page No. 3 of the petition is also duplicate, the same are required to be replaced.
- 6. The Advocate-on-Record resubmitted the petition in hand after removing the Objection No. 3 only and had not removed the objection Nos. 1 and 2 of the Objection Memo dated 30-3-2013. The resubmission of the petition after removal of all the objections raised by the office was required to be resubmitted within a period not exceeding Six Weeks as contemplated in Order V, Rule 1(7) of the Supreme Appellate Court Rules, 2008 but the Advocate-on-Record resubmitted the petition with the lapse of about Two Months and Twenty Six days. Order V, Rule 1(7) reads as follows.
- 8. It is observed that the Advocates-on-Record do not adhere to the legal provisions applicable to the petitions filed in this court. The office has correctly placed the matter before the bench of this Court as "Under Objection Case No. 10 of 2013". The resubmission of the petition is awfully time bared, whereas, the petition itself was filed with the delay of about Seventeen days. This is a petition against the acquittal of the respondents by both the courts below. A valuable right has already been accrued to them, which, at this juncture, cannot be taken away because of the lapse on the part of state, which is fully resourceful to deal their matters in accordance with law. The application for condonation of delay has also been perused carefully but no plausible ground has been given for condonation of delay, particularly, when the petition in hand was filed, while assailing the judgments of both the Courts below, against the acquittal of the respondents.
Judgment & Decree
RANA MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN, C.J.
This petition has been directed against the judgment/order dated 4-12-2012 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2012, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner herein was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the case FIR No. 24/2005 dated 8-1-2005 was registered with Police Station City, District Gilgit under sections 452, 148, 149 and 436, P.P.C. read with sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. On the conclusion of the investigation by the concerned police officer, the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was prepared, while placing the names of Hamid Hussain, Haidar Abbas and Ishfaq in Column No. 2 and the names of Akhtar Abbas, Rehmat Ullah, Sharafat Hussain and Nasir Ali in Column No. 3 of the aforesaid report, which was submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction for its trial.
3. The learned trial Court on the conclusion of the trial, acquitted all the accused persons of the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 25-10-2012. The prosecution, feeling aggrieved, called in question the said judgment before the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan. The learned Division Bench of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan vide judgment/order dated 4-12-2012 dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The learned Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan has been heard at a considerable length.
5. Mr. Ali Nazar Advocate-on-Record, had presented this petition on 22-1-2013. It is pertinent to mention over here that the instant petition was time bared by about Seventeen days. An application for condonation of delay was also filed. The office on receipt of the Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal raised the following objections:- "(i) The instant petition is not signed by Advocate-General. (ii) The concise statement signed by Advocate-on-Record is found duplicate as well as page No. 3 of the petition is also duplicate, the same are required to be replaced. (iii) The pages Nos. 19, 20, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 are required to be replaced by better copies."
6. The Advocate-on-Record resubmitted the petition in hand after removing the Objection No. 3 only and had not removed the objection Nos. 1 and 2 of the Objection Memo dated 30-3-2013. The resubmission of the petition after removal of all the objections raised by the office was required to be resubmitted within a period not exceeding Six Weeks as contemplated in Order V, Rule 1(7) of the Supreme Appellate Court Rules, 2008 but the Advocate-on-Record resubmitted the petition with the lapse of about Two Months and Twenty Six days. Order V, Rule 1(7) reads as follows. "Order V Business In Chambers (1) The powers of the Court in relation to the following matters may be exercised by the Registrar: - (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) , (6) ..., (7) Application for time to plead, for production of documents and generally relating to conduct of cause, appeal or matter and to allow from time to time any period or periods not exceeding six weeks, in the aggregate, for doing any other act necessary to make a cause, petition or appeal complete. (8) . (9) "
7. The plain reading of Order V, Rule 1(7) makes it abundantly clear that the petition was to be resubmitted within stipulated period, as it has been enshrined in Order V, Rule 1(7) i.e. before expiry of Six Weeks.
8. It is observed that the Advocates-on-Record do not adhere to the legal provisions applicable to the petitions filed in this court. The office has correctly placed the matter before the bench of this Court as "Under Objection Case No. 10 of 2013". The resubmission of the petition is awfully time bared, whereas, the petition itself was filed with the delay of about Seventeen days. This is a petition against the acquittal of the respondents by both the courts below. A valuable right has already been accrued to them, which, at this juncture, cannot be taken away because of the lapse on the part of state, which is fully resourceful to deal their matters in accordance with law. The application for condonation of delay has also been perused carefully but no plausible ground has been given for condonation of delay, particularly, when the petition in hand was filed, while assailing the judgments of both the Courts below, against the acquittal of the respondents.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition along with the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The objections raised by the office are upheld. HBT/61/GB Petition dismissed.