Special Leave to Appeal

Petitioners/complainants alleged that respondents had levelled allegations of zina against them, who were wedded couple, which caused mental torture/stress and agony to them

Respondents, in their statements alleged that petitioners/ complainants were continuing merital tie after execution of divorce deed

Said statements of the respondents were based on good faith, as after divorce deed spouses could not fulfil their matrimonial affairs as husband and wife

Under S.3 of Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, there must be specific allegations of "imputation of zina"

Petitioners had failed to prove the requisite ingredients of the "Offence of Qazf"

Statement of petitioner recorded during preliminary inquiry of the complaint case, had absolved the respondents of levelling allegations of adultery or zina

Statement by respondents during court proceedings that relations in between spouses/petitioners, after execution of divorce deed were against the principles of 'Shariah', by no stretch of imagination could constitute the offence of qazf

If the defence had taken a specific stance in their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C. even then it was duty of the prosecution to prove the entire case at their own strength

Even inconsistent pleas taken by accused would not give any benefit to the prosecution as it was settled duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt

Once reasonable doubt in the prosecution case was entertained its benefit must be extended to accused, not as a grace but as a right

Testimonies of all examined prosecution witnesses were full of contradictions with each other on material points

Trial Court rightly dismissed complaint of petitioners

Impugned judgment passed by Trial Court was speaking order after thrashing grain from chaff and correctly reached at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt

Impugned judgment did not call for interference; resultantly petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Complainant had admitted during cross-examination that both acquitted co-accused were residents of his village and known to him prior to the occurrence being his relatives

If said acquitted co-accused were known to the complainant being his relatives, why they were not named in the F.I.R.

Petition for special leave to appeal, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused party was already present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and it was the complainant party which had gone to that place and had restrained accused party from doing what it was doing at the spot

According to the prosecution itself it was the intervention of the complainant party which had enraged accused party and had propelled it into aggression

Case was not one of premeditation or pre-concert on the part of accused party

Trial Court after detailed assessment and evaluation of the evidence had concluded that the story of prosecution regarding construction of a water course at the spot by accused party was not correct

Star witness of the prosecution, who was injured, had refused to support the story of prosecution

Defence witness had stated that incident was a trifling one of an ordinary scuffle and no weapon had been used

No legitimate exception could be taken to the conclusion of the Trial Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

S. 13(3)-Special leave to appeal-Granted to examine contention that High Court had made contradictory observations while dealing with question of personal requirement of landlord and that evidence on question of default in payment of rent also needed re-examination.,

Art. 185(3)-Special leave to appeal-Point not raised before any of Courts below-Held, cannot be allowed to be urged before Supreme Court for first time.

Point not raised by petitioner in' support of appeal before High Court-Held, cannot be allowed to be raised in support of petition for special leave to appeal.

Co-owner of village Shamilat-Not an owner of contiguous property for purpose of pre-emption.

S. 297 read with Ss. 304-11 & 201/34-Accused committed to Sessions Court for trial under Ss. 304-11 & 201 read with S. 34Sessions Judge acquitting accused of charges framed against them but convicting them under S. 297-Facts of case fully brought out at trial and admitted by accused-Held, accused could be convicted under S. 297 even though he was not specifically charged thereunder-[Deragali Miah v. Emperor A I R 1940 Cal. 328 and Makhan and others v. Emperor A .I R - 1945 All. 81 overruled by Zulfrqar Ali Bhutto and others. v. The State P L D 1979 S C 531.

Granted to consider, inter alia, question whether High Court should not have remanded case for further and better evidence on question of damages High Court found to have failed to examine evidence on wholly arbitrary grounds

Judgment of High Court set aside and appeal remanded for deciding appellant's claim for damages in light of evidence produced by parties.-[Remand of cases].

Courts below including High Court on merits of case finding in favour of respondents-Petitioner not found to have suffered any material prejudice from judgment of High Court sought to b;, appealed against-Held, case not a fit one in which leave ought to be granted to petitioner against ,judgment of High Court.

- Art. 185(3)-Special leave to appeal- Contention that in spite of direction of High Court not yet certain as to when Sessions Judge would take up case for trial and as such ground of delay entitling accused to bail continued to be available-Direction of High Court for expeditious trial being very clear, premature for petitioners to come to Supreme Court on account of supposed non-compliance of direction Period indicated by High Court having not expired plea untenable No progress being made in trial of case during such period, petitioners in such eventuality, held, would be entitled to take matter again to High Court but no question arises, in circumstances of case, of grant of special leave to appeal.-[Delay].

Art. 185(3)-Special Leave to Appeal-Petitioner accused of illegally storing kerosene oil and carrying on trade without prescribed licence-Case at intermediary stage-Investigation completed, formal challan submitted and case complete for trial by Summary Military Court Points raised by petitioner capable of being appropriately raised before Military Court seized of matter-Petition found without force and dismissed.

Art. 185(2)-Special leave to appeal-Granted to examine reasons given by High Court for acquitting accused apparently based on surmise$ and conjectures-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Art. 58(3)-Special leave to appeal-Granted by Supreme Court to consider evidence in view of difference of opinion in High Court.[Special leave to appeal].

Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)-Special leave to appeal-Granted to consider whether circumstantial evidence in ruse incompatible. with innocence of appellant-Petal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 500.

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10(2)-Special leave to appeal-Granted to consider whether appellant had locus standi to challenge Government's order transferring disputed property in favour of respondent and whether that transfer was valid.

Penal Code (X LV of 1860), S. 302-Murder-Special leave to appeal-Evidence neither convincing nor free from infirmities-Acquittal neither perverse nor arbitrary but, based upon cogent grounds-Petition for special leave to appeal against acquittal dismissed.

Cantonment Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963), S. 17Special leave to appeal-Granted to consider whether a previous default, committed prior to promulgation of Act, wiped out by payment made prior to making of application by landlord for eviction, and whether landlord entitled to maintain application under S.17.

Special leave to appeal-Discretion exercised by Courts below concurrently not suffering from any defect-Petition dismissed.

Art. 58 (3)-Special leave to appeal-Petition dismissed as having become infructuous.

Proceedings in complaint lodged by Registrar of High Court under Ss. 182 & 193, P. P. C., for laying false information with Chief Justice of High Court in respect of a Civil Judge-High Court declining to quash proceedings-Leave to appeal sought on ground that Registrar was not competent to prosecute petitioner as false information was laid before Chief Justice who alone could lodge such complaint - Established practice-Complaint lodged by High Court is signed and presented by Registrar on its behalf-"Complaint in writing" held, in circumstances of case, made by High Court and not by Registrar which satisfied requirements of S. 195(1)(a), Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-Petition dismissed-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).

One of petitioners filing petition from jail in time-Petition of other petitioner time-barred by S days-Delay condoned in circumstances Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).

Criminal case Question relating to evaluation of evidence-Cannot be raised in appeal before Supreme Court-Special Leave to Appeal-Refused.

Art. 58(3) read with Supreme Court of Pakistan Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r. 1-Special leave to appeal-Petition to be lodged within 60 days from date of judgment or decree appealed from, except in cases in which certificate under Art. 58 (2) (a) refused by High Court-Limitation, in cases under cl. 10, Letters Patent (Lahore), however, reckoned from date of decree or judgment appealed from and not from date on which certificate refused-Time spent in pursuing application for such certificate-Held, to be sufficient cause for extension of limitation in proper cases Letters Patent (Lahore), cl. 10.

Special Leave to Appeal -Industrial dispute-Leave granted to consider whether dismissal of employee of company could be set aside by Tribunal and re-instatement ordered-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 160.

Special Leave to Appeal -Granted to consider adequacy of corroboration by material recoveries in criminal case.

Special Leave to Appeal Criminal matter-Leave granted and petitioner's case considered and disposed of along with appeals of co-accused-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 160.

Circumstantial evidence too meagre-Leave granted.

Thirty days-Federal Court Rules 1950, O. XLIV, r. 1-Extension of time-Sufficient cause. Under rule 1 of O. XLIV, Federal Court Rules, 1950 all petitions (including petitions by the Crown) should be lodged in Court within 30 days of judgment sought to be appealed from.