1968 P Cr (PLP)

Appeal to Supreme Court-Petition for special leave to appeal-Ground not taken-Cannot be allowed to be raised at hearing of petition-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3). Khalid Mahmud Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wali Muhammad, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 8th January 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner has been convicted under section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years. His conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore. He then moved the High Court in revision, but a learned Single Judge of the High Court has only .educed his sentence from two years to one year main taining his conviction. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal. Learned Counsel appearing in support of tire petition sought to contend that the High Court had misread and misinterpreted the defence evidence adduced in this case, but no such ground has been taken in the petition for special leave to appeal. Hence it is not open to him now to raise it in the course of arguments. Apart from this, he has not been able to show us as to how the High Court has misread the testimony of the defence witness Hanif. No certified copy of his deposition has been filed. There is no material, therefore, to support this contention. His next contention is that the first information report was lodged after considerable delay at 3-25 p.m. while it is alleged that the occurrence took place at about 8 a.m. This is incorrect, for, the Courts below have found that the victim returned from school at about 10- a.m. and that it was sometime later, at about 11-30 a.m. When he discovered his takhti missing. He then went back to his school to fetch it and it was on his way back that he was accosted by the petitioner. There was no inordinate delay, therefore, in the lodging of the first information report. The petitioner has, in our view, been rightly convicted on abundant reliable evidence. Two of the witnesses, who have deposed against him, were wholly disinterested witnesses and there, is nothing to show that they had any particular reason to falsely implicate him. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed,