2002 PLP 1189 (SCMR)
NASIR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1189 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court.of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | NASIR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1189 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1189 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court.of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1189 (SCMR) (NASIR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 2002
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 14‑3‑2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2001). ‑‑‑‑S.302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was barred by time by seven days‑‑ No sufficient ground had been disclosed for condonation of delay‑‑‑View taken by High Court that the petitioners had no locus standi or right to file appeal against acquittal of accused, was not shown to be legally incorrect‑‑ Petition was consequently dismissed both on merits and also being barred by time‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑The co‑accused in the case were acquitted. The petitioners who were convicted filed appeal against the acquittal of the said co‑accused before the Lahore High Court, which has been dismissed by holding that the petitioners had no locus standi or right to file appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy us that the view taken by the High Court is not legally correct.
3. This petition is barred by time by seven days. No sufficient ground has been disclosed for condonation of delay, therefore, the application made by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay is hereby dismissed.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed both on merits and as barred by time as well and leave refused. N.H.Q./N‑66/S Leave refused.