1968 SCMR 16 (PLP)
SIRAJ-Petitioner Versus DIAL AND others-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 16 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | SIRAJ-Petitioner Versus DIAL AND others-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 16 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 16 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 16 (PLP) (SIRAJ-Petitioner Versus DIAL AND others-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. Anwar Beg, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Wall Muhammad, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Raja Said Akbar, Advocate-General, West Pakistan (M. A. Bajwa, Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondent No. 3.
Headnotes / Summary
(Qn appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 28th March 1967, in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1967). Appeal to Supreme Court-Appeal against acquittal-Supreme Court as a rule does not extend time in entertaining belated petition for special leave to appeal-Petition delayed by 5 days-Vague statement by petitioner that he was busy in preserving his crops from untimely rains-Held, not satisfactory explanation-Constitution of Pakistan, (1962), Art. 58(3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order dismissing a revision petition filed by the petitioner herein against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, acquitting the first two respondents herein of a charge under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petition filed in this Court is out of time by five days and the only explanation for the delay is that the petitioner could not come to fetch the copy of the High Court's order in time due to untimely rains destroying his crops. This vague statement cannot be accepted without any further particulars as to the date, or dates during which it so rained and destroyed the petitioner's crops. Even otherwise his greater anxiety to preserve his crops cannot be treated as a satisfactory excuse for not taking steps in time, since this Court does not, as a rule, extend time in the case of petitions filed against orders of acquittal. No valid ground has been made out in this case for the con-donation of the delay. This petition is accordingly, dismissed as being barred by him. Petition dismissed.