Discrepancy

2022 SCMR 64 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. XII, R. 1 & O. XIII, R. 1Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(2) & 185(3)'Appeal to Supreme Court' and 'Petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court'Limitation period for filingDiscrepancy

Supreme Court Rules, 1980 ('the Rules') prescribed 30 days period for filing of an appeal under Art. 185(2), whereas a period of 60 days was provided for a petition for leave to appeal in terms of Art. 185(3) of the Constitution

Supreme Court observed that the Rules prescribed double the period for the filing of a petition to that for filing an appeal which was surprising because an appeal was filed as of right; that to attend to such discrepancy it may be appropriate to amend the Rules; that one simple way of doing this, without adversely affecting the accrued rights of any party, could be by amending O. XII, R. 1 of the Rules by substituting the stated period of 30 days mentioned therein for filing an appeal and bring it at par with the period in which a petition may be filed, that is, 60 days

Supreme Court directed the Registrar to bring the said issue to the attention of the Chief Justice who may place it for consideration in the next Full-Court meeting.

2015 PLD 242 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(5)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)Qatl-i-amd, common intentionBail, cancellation ofIdentical allegations against accused and co-accusedAccused admitted to bail while co-accused denied bail on identical allegationsDiscrepancy

High Court admitted accused to post-arrest bail on the grounds that he had not been nominated in the FIR for the alleged murders; and that the name of accused had been introduced in the present case as a culprit through a statement made by complainant, under S.161, Cr.P.C. after six days of the alleged occurrence

Validity

Said grounds relied upon by the High Court for admitting accused to bail equally applied to the case of co-accused whose petition for post-arrest bail had earlier been dismissed by the same Judge of the High Court by observing that complainant and the other eye-witnesses mentioned by her in her statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. were consistent regarding participation of co-accused in the murder and that the said co-accused was attributed an effective role of causing injuries to the deceased which allegation found support from the medical evidence

Allegations levelled by complainant and the other eye-witnesses against co-accused as well as accused were almost identical and the circumstances in which both of them had been implicated in the present case were also not dissimilar, thus, it was surprising that co-accused had been denied post-arrest bail by the same Judge who had admitted accused to post-arrest bail

Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court had adopted discrepant approaches vis-a-vis different accused persons attributed almost identical roles which approach could not be approved

Regarding the merits of the case accused stood duly implicated by complainant as well as the other eye-witnesses in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. as the person who had given toka(knife) blows to deceased on his head causing his death besides causing injuries to the other deceased collectively with the co-accused

Medical evidence prima facie lent support to the allegations levelled against accused

During the investigation accused had been opined to be fully involved in the alleged occurrence and consequently a challan had already been submitted against him before the Trial Court

Offence under S.302, P.P.C. attracted the prohibitory clause contained in S.497(1), Cr.P.C. and the present case was a case of double murder

Reasonable ground did exist regarding involvement of accused in the murders in issue

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed, and bail granted to accused by the High Court was cancelled.