(Sections 404-442, Cr.P.C.)
Presentation of appeal can be done by counsel or his clerk. PLD 1965 Lah. 258. Kashmira Singh.
No distinction in appeal to Supreme Court exists whether the appeal is by a convict, a private complainant, or by a Provincial Government PLD 1970 SC 224, Sikandar Hayat.
Whole Criminal case stands reopened at appellate state for hearing and decision according to law. Such like appeals cannot be decided summarily without analylitically discussing evidence on record. PLJ 1997 S.C. 1953, Sahab Khan etc.
Right is not a natural right, it is created by statute. AIR 1941 Lah. 414 Karam Dad v. Emperor.
Appeal treated as revision: High Court can treat an appeal as revision where necessary. (DB) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 486 Erfan Sheikh v. State; PLD 1959 Lah. 50 Sarwar.
Appeal converted into Revision. U/s. 417 (2), Cr.P.C. appeal by a person other than complainant not being competent, converted into revision u/S. 439, Cr.P.C. NLR 1985 Cr. p. 320. Muhammad Arif v. Master Muhammad Ashraf.
Appeal converted into revision. When appeal against confiscation of surety bond was filed instead of revision and the learned Session Court dismissed it on this technical ground. High Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge should have treated the appeal as revision. It is consistent policy of superior Courts that the matter be decided on merits and technical knock out should be sparingly resorted to as it amounts to denial of justice. Petition accepted. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lah) 1658, Muhammad Younas.
Appeal filed beyond limitation treated as revision. AIR 1931 Lah. 145; AIR 1931 Lah. 97; PLD 1959 Lah. 50; PLD 1962 Quetta 5.
Appeal treated as revision: Appeal to Federal Shariat Court from acquittal in a challan case by the complainant is not competent by same can be treated as revision, and in case revision is accepted acquittal cannot be converted into conviction. the case has to be remanded to the Trial Court. 1984 SCMR 138. Mitha etc. v. Haq Nawaz etc.
Revision treated as appeal. When filed in a complaint case from acquittal within 60 days u/S. 417 (2), Cr.P.C. 1980 P.Cr.LJ 1272 Karim Dad v. Muhammad etc.
Sentence over 4 years: Concurrent sentences cannot be aggregated for purpose of appeal to the High Court. 3 PLR 138 Guru Sahay. When several persons are sentenced in a case in which some to more than 4 years and others less than 4 years, the appeal would lie to the High Court even if the person, sentenced to over 4 years does not appeal convicts with under 4 years can appeal to the High Court and not to Sessions Court. 1916 PR 5 Ahmed Khan.
Appeal to High Court. Sentence 4 years' R.I. plus fine and R.I. in default of fine does not make the sentence appealable to High Court direct from the order of a Magistrate. PLD 1969 Lah. 48 Qasu etc.
Appeal from federal Shariat Court. Same rules to apply as to appeal from High Court. PLJ 1983 SC 186 Abdul Hamid.
When appellant not sentenced for more than 2 years appeal lies to High Court in Shariat cases and not to Federal Shariat Court. When the sentences are concurrent they cannot be aggregated for the purpose of appeal. Appeal returned. PLJ 1994 FSC 114, Tor Jan, also see PLJ 1994 FSC 74. Muhammad Abbas.
When sentence of 2 years or less is awarded for Offences Against Property Ordinance 1979 the appeal shall lie to the High Court and not to the Federal Shariat Court. (DB) PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Q) 1124 Pirak.
Order of returning appeal to the appellant by Federal Shariat Court not passed under provision of the Constitution (Under Art. 203-F) held, it had no binding effect on the High Court. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Q) 563 (D.B) Khudai Dad.
When one of the co-accused sentenced to more than two years imprisonment the appeal for offence u/S. 20 of Harabbah would lie to the Federal Shariat Court and not to High Court. PLJ 1995. Cr. C. (Q) 74, Nazak Mir.
Petition for leave to appeal against dead person is not maintainable. 1995 SCMR 241, Haji Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Faryad Ali and 9 others.
Appeal from conviction by one accused only: Other accused are entitled to benefit of the acquittal in order of the same appeal, in suo motu action under section 439, Cr. P.C (DB) PLD 1958 Kar. 383. Talib Hussain.
Case of non-represented appellant also examined by the Supreme Court as the cases of the co-accused who were represented were also being examined. 1993 SCMR 785, Munawar Hussain etc.
Appeal, effect of acquittal of some accused. Mere fact that some accused were acquitted out of abundant caution by lower appellate Court, does not affect the case of remaining appellants. (SC) 1969 P.Cr.L.J. 1085 Abdul Rahim.
Seven acquitted out of Nine person charged. Eye-witnesses close relatives of the deceased. Recovery disbelieved. Leave granted for re-appraisal of evidence. 1986 SCMR 74. Muhammad Haq etc.
Revision against conviction by accused, dismissed by High Court. State filed revision for enhancement. Sentence enhanced but the accused not allowed to reopen his case. ILR 8 Lah. 521 Crown v. Sher. (DB) AIR 1932 Nag. 73 Emperor v. Modkia.
Contra. (FB) ILR 25 Lah. 39 1. The Crown v. Atta Muhammad. (See below).
Appeal by accused against conviction in respect of minor offence heard and decided by High Court. Appeal under section 417, Cr. P.C from judgment of acquittal of graver offence in the same case is competent. (FB) AIR 1932 Nag. 121 Muhammad Gul v. Emperor.
Appeal and revision. Powers exercisable by High Court in all respects in appeal and revision are similar except that in appeal sentence cannot be enhanced and in revision, acquittal cannot be converted into conviction. (FC) PLD 1955 FC 20 Crown v. Sultan Mahmood.
Suo motu revision of order by High Court when appeal was dismissed by short order announced but while dictating reasons in support thereof new material came to the notice of the Court which had been skipped earlier. In the interest of justice, decision already recorded by short order altered and appellant acquitted to secure ends of justice u/S. 561-A Cr.P.C. (DB) PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Q) 168, Muhammad Sharif.
Sentence enhanced in appeal by issuing a suo motu notice under reversional jurisdiction by F.S.C from 7 years to life imprisonment. PLJ 1983 FSC 153. Ali Raza Shah.
Appeal and revision both before High Court. When appeal against convictions and revision for enhancement are before High Court about the same case High Court can alter, conviction under section 423, Cr. P. C from 304-A,P.P.C to section 304-II, P.P.C and then enhance the sentence if deemed fit under section 438, Cr. P.C PLD 1950 Lah. 364. Contra : PLD 1954 FC 141 = (DB) PLD 1955 Lah. 447 Fazal Karim v. Crown. (FB) PLD 1954 BJ 45 Crown v. Mauj Ali.
Appeal by convict and revision by complaint. High Court dismissed the appeal from conviction u/S. 325, P.P.C Complainant's revision from acquittal for offence u/S. 302, PPC dismissed on the ground that High Court could not revise its own order confirming the conviction of the appellant u/S. 325, PPC PLJ 1985 Cr. C. (Pesh) 125 Muhammad Bakhsh.
Accused pleads guilty before a second Class Magistrate. The appeal is not barred under section 412, Cr. P.C 27 Cr.L.J. 1148 Chunnilal.
Plea of guilty does not debar the appellant from showing that the facts admitted constituted no offence. Also held that when notice for enhancement of sentence is given appellant is entitled to show his innocence. NLR 1985 Cr. 283. Kennith S. Zeibelman. PLD 1976 Pesh. 144 Ghulam Rasul.
Accused pleads guilty and is convicted by a Magistrate, he can in revision petition contend that his conviction is illegal. AIR 1943 Bom. 209 (210) Emperor v. Nana Shahu.
Plea of guilty does not debar the Court from looking into the contention that the trial was against he provisions of law. Revision accepted. NLR 1983 Cr. 654 (2) Noor Zaman.
Appeal under Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958.- Although appeal under section 413, Cr. P.C or fine of Rs. 15 only is not competent yet such order is appealable under the Criminal Law Amendment Act XI of 1958. PLJ 975 Cr. C. (Lah). 23 Nazir Ahmed.
Appellate Court doubtful about the guilt of the accused, yet ordered retrial. Held, when there is no defect in trail the order is illegal. (FC) PLD 1954 FS 129 Abdul Sattar v. Crown.
Appeal summary dismissal. In Criminal appeal order must show that Court had applied its judicial mind to the questions of fact and law raised in the case, though a full an complete judgment is not required to be recorded. (SC PLD 1967 SC 498 Abdur Rashid. Appeal, summary dismissal, case remanded to High Court (SC) 1973 SCMR 395 Sher Muhammad v. Sher Zaman .
Appeal summary disposal. High Court disposed of appeal relating to serious criminal offences under sections 302-326, P.P.C. in summary manner without discussing evidence and without taking into consideration the ground on which the trial Judge recorded convictions. Manner in which appeal disposed of by High Court deprecated. Case remanded to High Court for disposal according to law. (SC) 1968 P.Cr.L.J. 622 East Pakistan v. Hatam.
Appeal not considered on merits. Merely because the counsel for appellant did not press the appeal on merits but asked for the reduction of sentence, the High Court is not relieved of its duty to peruse the record to see whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the appellant. Case remanded to the High Court for disposal according to law. (SC) 1971 SCMR 628 Abdul Siddiq.
Criminal appeal not to be dismissed as time-barred. In Criminal cases law of limitation should not be applied strict to- senso because question of liberty of a citizen is involved. Held, rejection of application for condonation of delay not justified. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah) 1179, Ghulam Shabbir.
Jail against dismissed summarily. Convict cannot reagitate matter by filing an appeal through a counsel. Under section 561-A orders of dismissal can be re-considered when passed without jurisdiction or without notice to appellant's counsel. PLD 1973 Lah. 448. Abdul Majid.
Abandonment not allowed. Appellant is not entitled to abandon appeal at his sweet will after obtaining leave. (SC) PLD 1975 SC 160 Mushtaq Ahmad v. Siddiqullah PLJ 1975 SC 61 1978 SCMR 374. Muhammad Latif v. Muhammad Farooq.
Appeal not to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Once the appeal is admitted to regular hearing, it must be decided on merits. It cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution for absence of the appellant or his pleader. Case remanded to High Court for decision on merits. 1986 SCMR 59. Muhammad Bakhsh.
Appeal cannot be dismissed in default after it has been admitted to regular hearing. Case remanded for disposal on merits. PLJ 1994 Cr. C (AJK) 391, Muhammad Najeeb.
Criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for prosecution. Criminal appeal once admitted for hearing cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. Absence of the appellant or his pleader does not relieve Court of its duty of perusing record and disposing of appeal on merits giving reasons in suppor of judgment proposed to be delivered. (SC) PLD 1970 SC 177 Muhammad Ashiq Faqir.
Appeal cannot be dismissed in default. 1972 P.Cr.LJ Muhammad Khalil PLD 1960 Lah. 11 Ghulam Muhammad. PLD 1950 BJ 54 Muhammad Yar v. Crown. PLD 1961 Dacca 78.
Non-appearance of appellant's counsel. Court can competently dispose of an appeal after perusing the record if the appellant's counsel does not appear. In this case the counsel sought adjournment which was refused and the appeal disposed of. (SC) PLD 1971 SC 22 Asif Ali.
Hearing the appellant or his pleader. Evidence of some witnesses was still to be read by counsel and his comments and arguments still to be made when Court passed order dismissing appeal. Held, it was not a proper hearing and the case was disposed of on merits by the Federal Court. Also held, the advocate should have complete independence in his choice of method before the appellate Court, and appellate Courts, should do nothing that might have the effect of terminating an advocate's argument, unless they have first satisfied themselves, by a direct question, that he cannot usefully add to what he has already said. (FC) PLD 1954 FC 123 Imran Ullah v. Crown.
Convicted person may withdraw his appeal. An appeal from conviction can be withdrawn by the appellant and the High Court should dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. However, if the Court wants a retrial or to enhance the sentence it should proceed under section 439, Cr.P.C. (SC) PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 119 Muhammad Aslam.
Withdrawal of appeal against acquittal. The appellant does not have a right to abandon appeal at his will. Such a course is opposed to law, public policy and is unwarranted by rules and practice of Court. Application for withdrawal of appeal dismissed. (SC) PLD 1970 SC 224 Sikandar Hayat v. Ata etc. Appeal against acquittal admitted by High Court. Crown made an application to withdraw it. Held, once appeal is lodged whether by accused or Crown and has been admitted it is not in the power of appellant to allow it to be withdrawn. The Court is bound once the appeal is admitted to proceed under sections 421, 422 and 423 to decide it on merits. (FB) ILR (1942) 23 Lah. 241 Crown v. Ghulam Muhammad.
Appeal from acquittal is not competent for offence u/S. 5(2) of 1947 PCA. Sec. 10(2) of Act 1958 provides no right of appeal to the Provincial Government against acquittal order passed by Special Judge. Right of appeal is a statutory right and unless statute provides for appeal from acquittal there is no right of appeal. Appeal by complaint dismissed. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. 565, Ashiq Muhammad v. Khuda Bakhsh.
On death of appellant during the pendency of his appeal against sentence of imprisonment and fine. The appeal does not abate under section 431, Cr.P.C. Legal heirs of deceased could challenge conviction on merits. (SC) 1971 SCMR 35 Dr. Ghulam Hussain.
Absconder's case. High Court adopting the reasoning of the earlier bench which had heard and dismissed the appeal of the companions of the absconder. Omission to apply mind independently to the separate trial of the absconder was disapproved. Case was sent back to be heard by a different Bench. (SC) PLD 1960 SC 18 Allah Ditta.
Rehearing appeal. Abscondence of the accused pending appeal for life imprisonment. Appeal dismissed without going into the merits of the case. Such order not judgment within the meaning of sections 367 & 369, Cr.P.C. Appeal may be reheard. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 655 Sher Khan.
Appeal; rehearing. Appeal heard by four Judges of Supreme Court while judgment signed by 3 Judges without obtaining the opinion of 4th Judge. Rehearing ordered on review petition. (SC) NLR 1981 Cr. 82. Muhammad Afzal.
Appellant fugitive from jail. Appeal may be decided after hearing his counsel. (DB) PLD 1957 Pesh. 75 Awal Khan. PLD 1966 Pesh. 232. 1972 SCMR 194.
Revision Sec. 439 & Sec. 440. Whether accused to be heard. Accused is to be heard in revision only when the Court sets aside the acquittal and orders retrial or enhances the sentence or itself passes some order prejudicial to the accused and not in a case where the Court does not interfere in revisional jurisdiction. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 555 Muhammad Rafiq.
Sentence cannot be enhanced without hearing or giving an opportunity of being heard to the accused. Fine imposed u/S. 544-A, Cr.P.C. by the High Court set aside. (SC) 1976 SCMR 195 Abdul Rehman etc. v. Khurshid Hussain.
When 10 years had passed since conviction. Supreme Court did not enhance the sentence from life imprisonment to death. 1993 SCMR 239, Noor Hussain.
Notice for enhancement of sentence given to the convict: He is entitled to show cause against his conviction notwithstanding that his revision petition against conviction was dismissed earlier in limine. overruled. ILR 10 Lah. 241 Crown v. Dhanna Lal (FB) ILR 1944 Lah. 391 The Crown v. Atta Muhammad.
In appeal from acquittal for offence u/S. 307 PPC as the accused had already undergone 2 years R.I. his conviction was maintained but he was not sent back to jail instead he was ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 to injured within one year and in default he was to suffer 2 years R.I. 1993 SCMR 243, Noor Ahmed v. Muhammad Anwar.
Enhancement of sentence from the orders of the Magistrate or revision in High Court from acquittal; the High Court can pass a heavier sentence than that which could have been passed by the trial Magistrate. In this case High Court convicted the respondents and awarded 10 years' R.I. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Kar.) 272 State v. Muhammad Shafi.
Enhancement in revision by High Court, cannot be in excess of the powers of trial Court. Fine reduced from Rs. ten thousand to five thousand. PLJ 1982 SC 709 Shaukat Ali.
Revision direct to High Court against commitment order. Revision in High Court pending for three years. Parties cannot be referred to the Sessions Court at that belated stage, 1975 P.Cr.LJ 902 Karam Elahi.
Revision direct to High Court entertained in supardari case and the objection that the petitioner should have moved the Sessions Judge first over ruled. PLJ 1976 Lah. 181 Farooq Jamil.
Revision direct to High Court from judgment of acquittal by Magistrate not entertained. Reliance placed on judgment of Supreme Court, Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan etc. (NLR 1983 SCJ 345) NLR 1984 Cr. 390. Packages Ltd. v. Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai.
Revision direct to High Court from the order of Magistrate is not ordinarily entertainable. Sessions Judge should be moved first; but where a revision petition has been entertained direct by the High Court it must be disposed of on merits. (DB) AIR 1932 Sindh 28 Abdullah Khan v. Emperor; PLD 1960 Kar. 42 Muhammad Farooq AIR 1927 Lah. 689 Muhammad Ishaq v. Emperor: 1972 P.Cr.LJ 928 (Lah.) Qadir Bakhsh.
Revision u/S. 439-A & Writ to High Court. Judgment u/S. 439-A, Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Court is final. The provision should not be circumvented through a writ petition. In writ jurisdiction the High Court can interfere only if the revisional Court has acted without jurisdiction or acted in violation of relevant statute or law as laid down by superior Courts. High Court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence as if a Court of appeal. PLJ 1981 SC 895 Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan etc.
Revision petition u/S. 439-A Cr.P.C. not maintainable when appeal u/S. 417 Cr.P.C. can be filed against order of acquittal. PLJ 1998 Lah. 530, Ghulam Muhammad v. Addl. Sessions Judge, etc.
Order u/S. 439-A, Cr.P.C. set aside in writ jurisdiction. Lahore High Court considering that the order of the two Courts below was not based on legal appreciation of evidence set it aside. The order had been passed u/S. 439-A, Cr.P.C. by Sessions Court. NLR 1984 Cr. 235 Mst. Rani v. Riaz Ahmed etc.
No notice given to the accused of revision petition heard by High Court. Order set aside and case remanded for rehearing after notice to the accused. 1998 SCMR 589, Hassan-ur-Rehman v. Haleem Shah and another.
Revision from acquittal u/S. 439-A, Cr.P.C. to Sessions Judge is competent when State declines to appeal. PLJ 1986 Cr.C. (Lah.) 5. Muhammad Khalid v. Muhammad Ashfaq.
Revision concurrent powers. Private complainant has concurrent remedy in 3 forms. D.M., Sessions Judge, and High Court. When order is made by Sessions Judge u/S. 439-A, Cr.P.C. further proceedings in High Court are barred. PLJ 1980 Cr.C. (Lah.) 157 Muhammad Bakhsh v. Iqbal Ahmed etc.
Revision of order u/S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. Order once passed by High Court should not be reversed, altered or amended unless in exceptional cases when order passed is without jurisdiction or patent injustice appears to have been done. PLD 1979 Q. 84. Masood Ali Khan v. Muhammad Aslam.
Revision from order of Drug Court to High Court is competent u/S. 439, Cr.P.C. Order enhancing sentence by High Court not interfered with by Supreme Court. PLD 1981 SC 352. Abdul Hafeez.
Law applicable to appeal. A right of appeal existing on a day on which a proceeding or lis commences or prosecution is a vested right and that right is governed by the law prevailing on that day and not the law prevailing on the date of its decision. This vested right can be taken away only by subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendant and not otherwise. The right of appeal is not a matter procedure but is a substantive right and there is no vested right in procedure. The procedure to be followed in the trial of an offender must be in accordance with the law of procedure in force on the date of the inception of the trial, and not the date of the commission of the offence. (FB) PLD 1962 Lah. 786 Ghazi and others.
[See also change/Repeal of Law]
Alteration of charge on appeal from conviction. Accused charged and convicted under Sec. 302, PPC., conviction on appeal altered to one under Sec. 304-A, P.P.C. Case-law discussed (DB) PLD 1963 Pesh. 145. Jehanzeb Khan.
Alteration of charge. Appellate Court not permitted to convict for offence graver than one with which charged. PLD 1960 SC 173 rel. PLD 1962 Kar. 858, Arbello etc.
Alteration of conviction in revision from Sec. 304 (II), PPC to Sec. 304 (I) cannot be done by High Court, therefore the enhanced sentence was set aside. 1986 SCMR 1585 Mushtaq Ahmad.
Alteration of charge and conviction in appeal is competent, in a murder case and one under section 452, P.P.C. Charge and conviction altered to under section 460, P.P.C., as no prejudice caused to accused. (DB) PLD 1952 Lah. 609 Mirza v. Crown; PLD 1952 Lah. 11. Mirza v. Crown.
Offence altered in appeal and sentence enhanced in suo motu revision. Appellant appealed from conviction u/S. 304 (1), but the High Court altered the offence to Sec. 302 and in suo motu revision u/S. 439, Cr.P.C. held that the sentence could be enhanced. (FB) 43 Cr.LJ 235 = 197 IC 669 Bawa Singh v. Emp. ILR 23 Lah. 129 = (DB) 49 Cr.LJ. 106 Ranjha v. Emp. Overruled by the Federal Court of Pakistan in Shera v. Crown. PLD 1954 FC 141.
Acquittal cannot be converted into conviction under Section 439, Cr.P.C. (Sec. above) PLD 1954 FC 141. The prohibition contained in section 439 (4), refers only to a case where a trial has ended in a complete acquittal of the accused in respect of all charges or offences, but also to a case where the accused ha been acquitted of one charge but convicted of a minor offence with which he is charged. There is not justification for adding to sub-section (4) the words, "Where the trial has ended in complete acquittal". AIR 1952 Oudh 25 Emperor v. Hassan Khan. Where an accused is charged with an offence of murder under section 302, P.P.C., he must be deemed to be acquitted of the charge of murder although he is convicted of a minor offence and the High Court in converting in revision the finding of acquittal of the accused on the charge of murder into one of conviction acts without jurisdiction (PC) AIR 1928 PC 254 = 111 IC 332 = 55IA 390 Kishan Singh v. Emperor.
Powers u/Ss. 423 & 439 Cr.P.C. can be combined by the High Court. Powers u/S. 423 of appellate Court are wider than those u/S. 439 with the exception of power to enhance sentence. High Court being simultaneously a Court of appeal and revision can exercise powers not only u/S. 423 but also u/S. 439 and enhance sentence passed by the lower Court. (D.B.) PLD 1963 Pesh. 145, Jahanzeb etc.
Arrest of accused in acquittal, by Supreme Court is fully covered by law and principles. 1980 SCMR 420 Said Mian etc. v. Said Baghdad etc.
Non-bailable warrants of arrest issued by High Court in appeal against acquittal and returnable to Subordinate Court. Subordinate Court cannot admit the accused to bail. (Cr.P.C. section 427). (DB) PLD 1941 Lah. 42 State v. Shafaat.
High Court can issue suo motu notice to the accused under section 439, Cr.P.C., for setting aside acquittal on certain charges and order retrial while hearing appeal from conviction. PLD 1954 FC 141 Shera etc. v. Crown, distinguished. (DB) PLD 1957 Dacca 260 Prafulla Das v. Crown.
Accused who do not appeal can also be given benefit of reduction of sentence or acquittal under section 439, suo motu revisional powers. (FB) PLD 1960 Pesh. 137 State v. Gandhal; PLD 1965 Kar. 637.
Jail appeal not filed, nor failure in such regard accounted for, although justice appears to have been miscarried, yet Supreme Court would not act under R. 6, of O.XLIX read with Cr.P.C. The Provincial Government could pass appropriate orders. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 695 Machia etc.
Appeal or revision against order under section 523, Cr.P.C. is not allowed (DB) ILR 25 (1944) Lah. 540 Ghulam Ali.
Revision admitted on question of sentence only but the petitioner's counsel was allowed to argue that no offence had been committed and petitioner was acquitted. (DB) ILR 20 (1939) Lah. 148 (149) second para). Harnam Singh v. Crown Contra PLD 1964 Lah. 93 Akhtar Mahmood v. District Magistrate.
Criminal appeal is continuation of trial. (SC) 1972 SCMR 173 Muhammad Abdullah v. Imdad Ali Shah.
Notice to State on revision not necessary. Under section 440, Cr.P.C.High Court can interfere with the sentence passed on the convict-petitioner under revisional powers without issuing a notice to the Crown, as the Crown has no right to be heard under section 440, Cr.P.C. (FB) ILR 27 Lah. 295 Amir etc. v. Crown. 1971 P.Cr.LJ 221 (Lah.) Fateh Muhammad v. State and also 1971 P.Cr.LJ 268.
Sections 423 and 439, All the words of section 423, Cr.P.C. are not to be read with section 439, Cr.P.C. PLD 1958 SC (Ind.) 293.
Court Martial findings are final as and when confirmed by a proper officer and no appeal lies to Privy Council. (PC) PLD 1947 PC 39 Muhammad Yakub Khan v. Emperor.
Appellate Court can rely on evidence rejected by the trial Court. The High Court has full powers to review at large all the evidence upon which the acquittal was based. The appellate Court can rely on the very evidence which had been entirely rejected by the Court of first instance. (PC) 47 Cr.LJ 1. Nur Muhammad v. K.E. 221 IC 56 = AIR 1945 PC 151.
Courts. Section 423 (d) read with section 439, Cr.P.C. does not authorise the High Court, in revision, to award costs of the proceedings before it. 34 Cr.LJ 414 (FB) Kapoor Chand v. Suraj Parshad.
Locus standi. Contention that only the State can challenge the order of a Court and not the complainant is incorrect. Any person can bring to the notice of the Court any illegality or material irregularity in the conduct of judicial proceedings by revision to the High Court. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 400 Nisar Ahmad.
First Informant had a locus standi for filling appeal to the Supreme Court although he had not filed any revision in the Federal Shariat Court. 1995 SCMR 1356, Sardar Muhammad.
Aggrieved person. Son is aggrieved person. Father put in jail under an illegal order. Son is an aggrieved person who could move for quashment of proceedings. (SC) PLD 1970 SC 399 Province of East Pakistan v. Hira Lal.
Revision. Any person aggrieved or otherwise can move the High Court in revision under section 435 or 439, Cr.P.C. (DB) PLD 1965 Kar. 105 Fazal Ullah.
Complaint or any aggrieved person can file appeal against acquittal in a case for offences under Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act, 1974. 1995 P.Cr.LJ. 391, Abdul Khaliq Khan v. Muhammad Afsar Khan etc.
High Court has powers, in a proper case, either under section 439 or under inherent jurisdiction to quash a conviction and sentence if the ends of justice so demand. Emperor v. Kasim 48 Cr.LJ 631 = AIR 1943 Pat. 313 Kirshana Chandra v. Emperor.
Suo motu quashment. On a transfer application before a Chief Court, it appeared from the record that in fact there was no case against the petitioner-accused. The proceedings against him were quashed in suo motu revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. (DB) PLD 1956 Sindh 262 Imam Bux v. Crown.
Delayed revision under Section 439, Cr.P.C. In Lahore High Court, there is no rule of practice that criminal revisions which are filed after the expiry of 60 or 90 days must be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. (DB) AIR 1934 Lah. 264 Des Raj v. Emperor.
[See also "Limitation"]
Finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court is entitled to respect normally the appellate Court is reluctant to upset finding of fact unless it is shown that those findings could not have been arrived at on the evidence on record PLD 1951 FC 107 Ahmed v. Crown; AIR 1934 PC 227 Sheo Saroop v. King-Emperor rel. (DB) PLD 1969 Pesh. 126 State v. Karamat.
Appeal--Revision concurrent finding of fact by Courts below. The rule as to concurrent findings of fact does not apply to criminal cases. PLD 1967 SC 334 Samual v. Samual and State. (PLD 1971 SC 725 concurrent finding of fact of 3 Courts below upset by Supreme Court).
Judgement of appellate Court not setting out points for determination, decision thereon nor reason for the same held, no judgment in law. Case remanded for re-writing of judgment. PLD 1968 Pesh. 31 when the Court of appeal on facts not indicating that Court applied its mind to the evidence. It is not a proper judgment. PLD 1958 Dacca 549. Setting down conclusions without reasoning in support is not a proper way of disposal of appeals. Such perfunctory treatment deprecated. (DB) PLD 1958 Dacca 572 Sona Mia.
Record stolen pending appeal and no copies available for reconstruction of record, retrial ordered under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. PLD 1961 Lah. 45 Bati.
Record burnt in transit from Sessions Court to High Court. Reconstruction of record not possible. Retrial ordered, 1978 P.Cr.LJ. 765, Daulat.
A Division Bench of the High Court under section 411-A Cr.P.C. cannot expunge any passage from the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court in a criminal case on the original side. (SC) PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 333 Malik Feroz Khan Noon.
Case laid before 3rd Judge under Section 420, Cr.P.C. means the whole case, to enable him to arrive at a decision about the matter in difference. (FB) PLD 1959 Lah. 715 Ibrahim. PLD 1975 Adil Shah.
On difference of opinion between two Judges, the third Judge is not bound to agree with Judge favouring acquittal. PLD 1971 Lah. 292 State v Salehon.
Retrial ordered by High Court on revision from acquittal, Supreme Court does not interfere unless order manifestly arbitrary or capricious. (FC) PLD 1956 FC 12 Qadar Dad v. Sultan Bibi.
Retrial not ordered under section 439, Cr.P.C. when the accused had already undergone the expenses and worry of a trial and 15 days imprisonment. (DB) PLD 1949 Pesh. 1. Faiz Alam.
Retrial under Section 439, Cr.P.C. High Court's power to order retrial is unlimited. Retrial not a second but continuation of the same trial. Not within principle of double jeopardy. (FC) PLD 1955 FC 185 Anwar v. Crown.
Revision from acquittal in case of trivial nature (under sections 323 and 426, PPC. Acquittal set aside by High Court and case transferred under section 526, Cr.P.C. to itself. Accused convicted. Propriety of such procedure (resulting in conversion of acquittal into conviction by High Court in case which in normal course should have come to the High Court in revision) Supreme Court declared the question to be complex one, maintaining the High Court's order but reduced the sentence to already undergone remarking that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. (SC) PLD 1965 SC 179 Riaz Haider Zaidi.
Revision: Locus Standi. Only state authorised and competent to challenge order or discharge. State not challenging order of discharge. Complainant dying meanwhile. Petitioner, a brother seeking revision of the order, held, the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 89 Badar-ud-Din, (note: This authority is not based on any law or decision of any Court).
Revision dismissed in default can be restored under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. when sufficient reason is given for default and dismissal is not on merits. 1982 SCMR 215. Muhammad Ramzan v. Allah Ditta.
Principle justifying interference in revision from acquittal, have repeatedly been laid down by the Supreme Court PLD 1959 SC 258 Labu, PLD 1960 SC 286 Fateh Muhammad v. Baggo. PLD 1964 SC 26 Siraj Din v. Kala. Unless it is demonstrated with certainty that none of the grounds of acquittal are supportable, the superior Courts will not interfere only because a different view could be taken by the superior Court if it was trying the case. (DB) PLD 1964 Karachi 356 Khurshid Ahmad v. Kabool Ahmad etc.
Revision: Executive orders. An executive order is as much open to review by High Court as a judicial order made by an inferior Court, 1976 P.Cr.LJ 977 Muhammad Rafi etc. v. Ahmad Saleem, A.C. Lah.
Where State does not appeal. The mere omission of the State to appeal against an order of acquittal does not in all cases give finality to such finding and it can be altered by the High Court under section 423 (1) (b) while does not impose any limitation upon the powers of the Court to alter any finding so long as it does not involve enhancement of sentence. 46 Cr.LJ 38 (FB) Zamir.
Procedure for revision against acquittal. The revision must be accompanied by a copy of the order of the District Magistrate to move that Provincial Government to file an appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. and Judgment of Sessions Judge. see rule 1-A, Chap. 1, Part (b) High Court Rules and Orders Vol. V.
Revision from acquittal before Sessions Court. Clerk of Court or Court of Sessions cannot refuse to receive petition for revision from acquittal order passed by a magistrate in challan case when not accompanied by an order passed by the District Magistrate. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Lah.) 95. Riaz Ahmed.
Certificate not needed in revision from acquittal u/S. 417, Cr.P.C. when such petition is moved before Sessions Court. The revision is competent. NLR 1989 Cr. 530 Mirza Riaz Ahmed.
When reasons given by the Trial Court are: Speculative, artificial, findings based on no evidence, or misinterpretation of evidence, or the conclusions drawn by the Court are perverse or foolish resulting in miscarriage of justice, the Court of appeal in such a case will re-examine the evidence and draw its own conclusions from it. 1996 SCMR 678, State v. Abdul Ghaffar.
Reasons given by High Court for acquittal artificial and imaginary and doubts not genuine, in double murder case. Supreme Court restored the trial Court's sentence of death. PLJ 1996 SC 1100, Muhammad Iqbal.
In appeal against acquittal Court's act slowly in interfering unless grounds for acquittal are perverse or wholly illegal or unreasonable. 1996 SCMR 1742, Aslam Khan v. Swans Khan.
In appeal against acquittal u/S. 417 Cr.P.C. by the State, High Court should give the weight to the opinion of the trial Court. 1996 SCMR 678, State v. Abdul Ghaffar.
State appeal against acquittal dismissed without hearing complainant who had filed private complaint case and is appeal against acquittal which should have been heard alongwith state appeal was heard after the dismissal of State appeal. Order of dismissal of State appeal recalled by High Court u/S. 561-A Cr.P.C. (D.B.) PLJ 1995 Cr.C. (Lah.) 102, Muhammad Sarwar v. Sana Ullah etc.
Appeal from acquittal. Certified copy of impugned order not filed by the State alongwith the appeal. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Kar). 1583, State v. Muhammad Hashim Sher (DB).
After grant of leave to appeal u/S. 417(2) Cr.P.C. appeal has to be filed by the petitioner if he wishes to do so. In case of not filing appeal petition dismissed. Petition cannot be treated as appeal. 1995 P.Cr.LJ 408, Mst. Razia Bibi v. Nazir Ahmed etc. PLD 1995 Cr.C. (Lah.) 55.
Revision from acquittal, when the revision petition is not accompanied by copy of the order of D.M. revision will not be competent. When Government is not interested and does not appeal, High Court will order a retrial when a grave and irremediable injustice must result and the trial has been contrary to some fundamental rule of procedure and evidence had been unreasonably viewed. (FB) PLD 1950 Lah. 439 Sh. Abdul Karim's case Contra (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 265 Parial Shah. 1972 Cr.LJ 865 (Kar.) Abdul Hamid v. Nabi Bux PLD 1980 Lah. 201 Iftikhar Ahmed v. Abdul Majid.
When revision from acquittal u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. filed without certificate, in the High Court that the State had refused to file appeal from acquittal and the State appeal against co-accused in the same case already dismissed on merits, the revision was dismissed in limine (D.B.) PLD 1993 Lah. 265, Malik Muhammad Qasim v. Ali Bakhsh.
No revision from acquittal by High Court, on original side is competent in the High Court, (DB) NLR 1987 Cr. 579. Naeem Sabir Moghal v. Nazim etc.
Acquittal order appealable u/S. 417(2-A) Cr.P.C. revision u/Ss. 435, 439 or 439-A Cr.P.C. without availing remedy of appeal u/S. 439 (5) is not competent . PLJ 1998 Cr.C.(Q) 92, Bahadar Khan v. State and another.
Appeal from acquittal of one of several acquitted accused only should not necessarily result in rejection of entire prosecution case. (DB) PLD 1959 Lah. 715 Ibrahim. (DB) PLD 1961 Lah. 333 Moonda.
Accused had remained in jail for over 2 years before acquittal for offence u/S. 307 PPC. Conviction restored by Supreme Court but sentence reduced to already undergone. Fine enhanced to Rs. 50,000 to be paid within one year as compensation and in default of payment of fine to suffer 2 years R.I. 1993 SCMR 23, Noor Ahmed v. Muhammad Anwar etc.
Appeal from acquittal to Federal Shariat Court by complainant is not competent as the Provincial Government had not directed the Public Prosecutor to present appeal. (Art. 233-F (2-B). PLJ 1982 SC 126. Muhammad Riaz Ahmad v. Amjad Hussain etc.
Appeal from acquittal. Supreme Court to interfere when findings are not reasonable and arrived at by the disregard of principles of appreciation of evidence or by misreading of evidence or findings which are not supported by facts in evidence.(SC) PLD 1977 SC 4. Farid v. Aslam etc. PLJ 1977 SC 140.
Appeal from acquittal not presented by public prosecutor, held incompetent and dismissed. NLR 1985 Cr. 291 Government of Pakistan v. Zar Badshah.
Appeal against acquittal can be competently filed by Deputy Attorney General. 1992 SCMR 372, Liaqat Ali etc.
"Aggrieved person.": It appears that when Shariat was declared as governing law government thought it proper to extend right of appeal to a person aggrieved against order of acquittal. Word "Aggrieved person" has been intentionally used so as to include agencies of Government. (D.B.) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Q) 909, State through Deputy Director (FIA) v. Zahid Nadeem etc.
Appeal against acquittal once admitted, entire case is reopened on facts and law. High Court will interfere if prosecution evidence has been rejected on speculative grounds. Appellate Court to re-examine whole evidence and draw its own conclusions. (SC) 1973 SCMR 635 Faiz Ullah Khan.
Appeal from acquittal sentence. The provision of section 367, Cr.P.C. is mandatory. There is not distinction in awarding sentence under section 302, PPC., in original trial or in appeal from acquittal: the normal sentence is death unless there are extenuating circumstances. (DB) PLD 1960 Pesh. 132 State v. Inzar Gul.
Principles in dealing with appeal from acquittal are:
(1) Presumption of innocence of accused becomes double
(2) Supreme Court would not interfere unless all grounds of acquittal were not supportable from evidence on record.
(3) Conclusions reached by Courts below were such that no reasonable person could conceivably reach the same.
(4) Judgment of acquittal is perverse and the reasons given for it are artificial and ridiculous.
(5) Supreme Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in irresistible conclusion and that too, with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose. PLJ 1995 S.C. 351, Sikandar Hayat v. Muhammad Nawaz etc.
Provincial Government to decide against which of the several acquitted accused it will prefer an appeal. Omission to prefer appeal against some of them is no ground for dismissal of Government appeal. (DB) PLD 1955 Lah. 271 Crown v. Mirza Khan.
Lower Court wrongly acquitted co-accused, to appeal or revision filed against it. The acquittal of co-accused by lower Court not sustainable in law, held, the consideration of inconsistency does not out weight interest of justice. Two wrongs do not make one right. Mistake committed by lower Court cannot be repeated by higher Court on this pretext. PLD 1977 SC 508. Noor Muhammad PLJ 1977 SC 407.
An order of acquittal cannot be converted into one of conviction by the High Court except in appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. but the High Court can in revision set aside an order of acquittal and order a retrial. However, High Court should be reluctant to order a retrial in revision where entire evidence had been recorded by a competent Court without any irregularity because such an order means practically a direction to the subordinate Court to convict because of the absence of appeal under section 417 the High Court could not turn acquittal into conviction in revision. (DB) PLD Lah. 239 Muhammad Ali v. Crown.
Acquittal of accused not challenged by the State or the complainant in the High Court in revision or appeal, PSLA in the Supreme Court not maintainable against the judgment of the trial Court. 1995 SCMR 241, Haji Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Faryad Ali etc.
Acquittal cannot be converted into conviction in revision. Accused acquitted u/S. 302, PPC but convicted u/S. 304, PPC. Revision for conviction from Sec. 304 (II), PPC to 302, PPC not being competent dismissed. PLJ 1991 Cr. C. (Lah.) 351 Abdul Karim v. Muhammad Siddiq.
Accused acquitted of charge under section 302/149, PPC.-- Appeal by accused for his conviction under section 148, PPC High Court after notice to accused convicted accused under section 302/149, PPC and passing a sentence for transportation for life in exercise of revisional powers and rejected appeal for conviction under section 148, PPC. Held, conviction under section 302/149, PPC not sustainable. ILR 1924 Lah. 129 (F.B) wrongly decided. The reversal of finding of acquittal and its substitution by a finding of conviction cannot be covered by words "alter a finding" as used in section 423. The provisions of sections 423 & 439, Cr.P.C. cannot be availed of in such a manner as to reverse the finding of acquittal under the clock of merely altering it. ILR 8 (1927) Lah. 136 & ILR 1942 Lah. 129 (FB) wrongly decided: AIR 1928 P.C. 254 Kishan Singh v. Emp. followed. The powers under section 439, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to convert a finding of even a partial or implied acquittal into one of conviction. It could not have been the intention of legislature that what the High Court could not do suo motu in the interest of justice it should be able to do merely because a person who has been partially acquitted avail of his right to appeal from the conviction imposed on him. An acquittal cannot be converted into conviction on the revisional side and also cannot be altered in to conviction on the appellate side, in an appeal from conviction in the same case. The only method by which an acquittal can be converted into conviction is on appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. (FC) PLD 1954 FC 141 Shera v. Crown.
Principle of appreciation in appeal from acquittal:
(1) The acquittal carries double presumption of innocence. One is initial, that till found guilty accused is innocent; second, the trial Court has confirmed the presumption of innocence.
(2) Unless the grounds on which the High Court had acquitted the accused were not supported by evidence on record Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere.
(3) Unless the conclusion reached by the Court below is such that no reasonable person would reach the same, the Court would not interfere.
(4) Unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse and the reasons given are artificial and ridiculous the Supreme Court would not interfere.
(5) Supreme Court would interfere in exceptional cases on conclusive and irresistible overwhelming proof resulting in conclusion that the accused is guilty, and that to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose. 1994 SCMR 1928, Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain.
Conviction u/S. 324, PPC by Sessions Court in revision converted into u/S. 326, PPC, held, the Addl. Sessions Judge had no power to convert conviction from minor offence into major offence. Proper course was to set aside the judgment and remand the case of retrial. Petition accepted u/S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. PLJ 1991 Cr. C. (Lah.) 229 Manzoor.
Revision against acquittal: Delay of 8 months in filing petition by private party is not inordinate - Conclusion reached by trial judge not supported by balanced statement of relevant facts or by truly reasoned arguments. Retrial ordered. (SC PLD 1952 SC 249 Abdul Rashid. (DB) PLD 1973 Kar. 66 Sawitri v. Gopal Das.
Revision against acquittal u/S. 417(2-A) Cr.P.C. should be filed within 30 days, when revision was filed beyond 30 days it could not be converted into appeal as u/S. 439(5) Cr.P.C. when an appeal lies and no appeal is brought to proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained. Revision petition dismissed. PLJ 1996 Cr.P.C. (Pesh.) 2058, Hidayat Ullah Khan v. Abdul Majid etc.
Revision against acquittal by private party. Retrial should not invariably be ordered unless acquittal based on technical grounds. Retrial amounting to direction to convict accused not to be ordered in revision from acquittal PLD 1961 Lah. 561 rel. PLD 1964 Kar. 81 Mrs. Ann Coleman v. Arif etc.
Finding of fact in revision from acquittal.-- Finding of fact in appropriate cases can be disturbed. Interference by High Court not confined to cases where order of Court below, "manifestly wrong or perverse". Discretion vested in High Court to be exercised in accordance with dictates of justice and not in arbitrary and fanciful manner. In revision against acquittal Court not to interfere unless non-interference would involve endorsement of patently unfair order or one which would lead to miscarriage of justice. (SC) PLD 1966 SC 424 Feroze Khan v. Capt. Ghulam Nabi Khan.
Principles of interference in Appeal/Revision from acquittal.-- Principles laid down in the following authorities that the High Court should not interfere with orders of acquittal if it could not be said that the reasons given by the trial Judge were perverse or wholly illogical or unsustainable, its application depends on the fact of each case. Where the reasons given by the trial Court were wholly artificial, High Court's interference was justified. Cases referred; PLD 1964 SC 422 Abdul Majid v. Supdt, and Legal Remembrance: AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) Sheo Saroop v. King Emperor; PLD 1962 SC 489 Mir Ahmad v. State; 1968 SCMR 1168 (2) Gul Nawaz (SC) PLD 1969 SC 293, Usman Khan also see (SC) PLD 1964 SC 795 Abdur Rashid Khandkar v. Chandu.
Lapse of 22 years since occurrence, leave to appeal for enhancement of sentence was dismissed, as the respondent had served out the sentence and a long time had passed since the occurrence. 1989 SCMR 711. Mst. Hamida Begum.
A Judgment of acquittal to be sparingly interfered with. High Court acted in accordance with safe administration of justice. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1989 SC 345. Ahmed v. Muhammad Nawaz etc. PLD 1989 SC 440.
When conclusion reached by trial Court possible. State appeal from acquittal dismissed. (DB) NLR 1985 Cr. 449. State v. Muhammad Akram etc.
Reversion against acquittal. High Court's order held to be intra vires and correct where reasoning adopted by trial Court in acquitting accused manifestly wrong and perverse. Retrial order approved. (FC) 1971 SCMR 264 Khan and others v. Crown.
Revision from acquittal. Evidence not appreciated correctly. Acquittal set aside and retrial ordered. 1965 P.Cr.LJ 1281 Allah Dino.
Revision against acquittal.-- All eye-witnesses of partisan character: medical evidence against prosecution case. No independent corroboration of evidence. Accused rightly acquitted. (SC) 1971 SCMR 714 Sohab v. Siraj Din and others.
Reasons for acquittal neither artificial nor ridiculous and the judgment of acquittal was not perverse. Eye-witnesses had suppressed injuries on the accused. No strong and exceptional ground available for interference with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal by the High Court. Leave to appeal refused. 1995 SCMR 855. Shafiq Ahmed v. Muhammad Ramzan etc.
Revision against acquittal. Courts should be very slow to interfere unless non-interference would involve an endorsement of a patently unfair order. When the view taken by the trial Court is reasonably possible, simply that an alternative view might have been taken does not justify the setting aside of acquittal order. (SC) PLD 1966 SC 424 Feroze Khan v. Ghulam Nabi Khan.
Revision against acquittal filed by a private party.-- Government when asked if they would file an appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. indicated that they had decided not to appeal from acquittal. Revision was dismissed. Government put in an appeal within time. The appeal was held to be incompetent. The matter could not be re-agitated in another form. (FC) PLD 1955 FC (20) Crown v. Sultan Mahmood, upholding (DB) PLD 1953 Lah. 271 Crown v. Sultan Mahmood.
Revision in High Court is continuation of judicial proceedings. PLJ 1986 Cr.C. (Kar.) 444 State v. Abdul Waheed.
Revision from acquittal. In revision from acquittal when the High Court gave definite finding of guilty, the order of retrial would amount to a direction to convict, and as such when trial was not by an unbiased judge the trial was vitiated and hence the appeal from such trial. Conviction set aside (FC) PLD 1953 223 Khairdi Khan v. Crown over-ruled by PLD 1955 F.C. 185 Anwar and another v. Crown.
Advocate-General who is not Public Prosecutor under section 492, Cr.P.C. is not competent to present appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. Conviction of respondent on such appeal held void for lack of jurisdiction (FC) PLD 1955 FC 79 Kadir Bux v. Crown.
Appeal from acquittal. When High Court is satisfied that the evidence warrants a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, the appeal is to be accepted. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 31 State v. Muhammad Alim PLD 1975 Kar. 168:
Appeal against acquittal, factors to be considered:
(a) View of the trial judge of the credibility of witnesses.
(b) Presumption that the accused are not guilty.
(c) Right of the accused to the benefit of doubt.
(d) Be slow disturb the finding of fact. (PC) AIR 1934 PC 227 Shew Saroop v. King Emperor. (DB) PLD 1958 Lah. 300; PLD 1967 Kar. 440 State v. Umed Ali. (DB) PLJ 1978 Cr. C. (Lah) 617 State v. Muhammad Ashraf etc.
Appeal against acquittal whether against perverse judgment only. View that before converting finding of acquittal into one of conviction appellate Court must show that the judgment of lower Court was manifestly wrong or perverse is no longer good law. (DB) AIR 1925 Lah. 600 Emperor v. Karam Overruled, (FC) PLD FC 185 Anwar v. Crown. (DB) PLD 1963 Kar. 242 State v. Bashir Ahmad.
Appreciation of evidence even though different view possible; the Supreme Court refused to interfere in conclusions reached by High Court in appeal from acquittal. 1980 SCMR 81 State v. Barket Ali etc.
Appeal against acquittal on facts and law. The State has a right to appeal against acquittal both on facts and law. The practice that order of acquittal will not be set aside on grounds of appreciation of evidence alone is not correct. If the reasons given by the trial judge are speculative, artificial or are based on misinterpretation of evidence or the conclusions perverse or foolish, the Court of appeal in such cases will re-examine the evidence and draw its own conclusions. (SC) PLD 1969 SC 398 Ghulam Muhammad v. Muhammad Shareef. PLD 1971 Lah. 292.
Appeal against acquittal. Delay in lodging FIR explained as due to lack of transport facilities. No serious enmity between the accused and eye-witnesses. Stolen gun of deceased recovered from accused. Accused also absconded. Minor discrepancies in evidence of no effect. Held, conviction wrongly quashed. (SC) 1971 SCMR 371 Ghani Khan v. Sail Badshah.
Against those accused who have been served can be heard separately from those who have not been served. (DB) PLD 1960 Pesh. 126 State v. Karamat.
Appeal against acquittal u/S. 417 (2-A) Cr.P.C. is maintainable by the aggrieved person regarding the cases which were pending trial at the time of the amendment, in order to bring this section in conformity with Islamic Injunction. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Q) 1865, Zahid Ali v. The appeal can now be filed without the permission of the State i.e. the District Magistrate as it was done previously now the aggrieved party can file appeal instead of revision against acquittal contrary to previous practice).
Acquittal u/Ss. 249-A and 265-K is an order of acquittal. Remedy available to the aggrieved party is appeal u/S. 417, Cr.P.C. PLD 1999 Kar. 130, Wazir v. Muhammad Yuqub.
Appeal against acquittal by any person against the order of any Court other than High Court is to be made u/S. 417(2-A) Cr.P.C. within 30 days. A revision filed against order of acquittal beyond limitation period of 30 days was not competent, as it could not be treated as appeal because of being filed after 30 days and u/S. 439 (5) Cr.P.C. when an appeal can be filed no revision by the party who could have filed an appeal can be entertained. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 1783, Hidayat Ullah v. Abdul Majeed and another.
No revision u/ss. 439 & 417 (1) Cr.P.C. can be filed when remedy by way of appeal is available but is not utilised. 1995 P.Cr.LJ 1369, Abdul Majeed etc. v. M/s. M. Ghulam Muhammad etc.
Acquittal on complaint is not revisable but is appealable under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. NLR 1987 Cr. 470 Noor Gul.
Weight to be given to findings of trial Court. Cases resting wholly on direct evidence of witnesses, benefit of every doubt must be given to the accused. Trial Court on fair reading of evidence formulating grounds of doubt neither perverse nor wholly unreasonable. Reversing findings in appeal not free from risk. (SC) PLD 1964 422 Abdul Majid.
Evidence not properly appreciated causing failure of justice. Acquittal set aside. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 234 Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Yousaf etc.
Appeal being one from order of acquittal passed by High Court, Supreme Court, held slow to upset order of acquittal unless decision perverse or unreasonable. Findings of High Court being reasonable and not arrived at by disregarded of any accepted principles regarding appreciation of evidence. Acquittal maintained. (SC) 1975 SCMR 446 Ghulam Muhammad v. Muhammad Hayat.
Finding of fact in revision can be upset by High Court when Courts below have omitted to consider certain important aspects of the case. NLR 1981 Cr. 441 Saiful Latif etc.
Principles to be considered in appeal against acquitted in Supreme Court are:
(1) As a principle, ordinarily, Supreme Court would not interfere in an appeal against acquittal and instead would give due weight and consideration to the findings of the Courts acquitting the accused. This approach is slightly different from the one in appeal against conviction. When leave is granted only for the re-appraisement of evidence it is to see that benefit of every doubt is given to the accused. This difference in approach is mainly due to the fact that the acquittal carries with it two well-accepted presumptions; (I). This found guilty the accused is innocent (ii) After the trial the Court below confirmed the presumption of innocence.
(2) The acquittal will not carry any of the above two presumptions if it is found that: (a) The Court below disregarded material evidence; (b) misread such evidence; (c) received such evidence illegally.
(3) In either case the well-known principles of reapportionment of evidence will have to be kept in view when examining the strength of views expressed by the Court below. They will not be brushed aside lightly on mere assumptions, keeping always in view that a departure from the normal principle must be necessitated by obligatory observance of some higher principles as noted above and for no other reason.
(4) The Court would not interfere with acquittal merely because on reappraisal of evidence another view different from that of the acquitting Court was also reasonably possible. If the conclusion reached by the acquitting Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then the Supreme Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in irrestiable conclusion; and that too to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose. The important test is that the finding sought to be interfered with, after scrutiny should be found as wholly artificial shocking and ridiculous. 1992 SCMR 1036, Mst. Ordered v. Khan Bahadar etc. PLD 1985 S.C. 11, Ghulam Sikandar and another v.Maumrez Khan etc. followed.
In appeal against acquittal the Supreme Court would interfere only when the conclusion reached by the acquitting Court was such that no reasonable person would reach the same. Appeal dismissed. 1994 SCMR 1257, Zahoor Hussain Shah.
Leave to appeal against acquittal granted by Supreme Court and appeal allowed as there was balatant misreading of evidence causing miscarriage of justice which no reasonable person could conceive. 1999 SCMR 610 State v. Nazir Ahmed, etc.
Appeal from acquittal, even if another view is possible that would not be a ground to interfere in the High Court judgment of acquittal. 1992 SCMR 983, Muhammad Nazir v. Tariq etc.
When appeal from acquittal is not to be accepted by High Court. Unless the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse, completely illegal and there is misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice or acquittal was due to incompetence, stupidity leading to distorted conclusions the acquittal may be set aside. Accused acquitted. 1992 SCMR 96, Yar Muhammad etc. (Cases ref. AIR 1934 P.C. 227); PLD 1951 F.C. 107; PLD 1969 S.C. 398; 1972 SCMR 672; 1970 SCMR 755; 791 SCMR 52.
Principles for interfering in appeal from acquittal stated. 1992 SCMR 1047, Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia. PLD 1985 S.C. 11, Ghulam Sikandar etc. v. Mamrez Khan etc.
Reasons given by High Court for acquittal when neither ridiculous nor perverse or artificial, and the view taken by the High Court of evidence on record could be conceived by any reasonable person, leave to appeal was dismissed. PLJ 1996 S.C. 3, Abdul Rehman v. Fateh Sher etc = 1996 SCMR 176.
Appeal from acquittal, the Supreme Court interferes only if it finds that the conclusion arrived at by appreciation of evidence was not possible. 1991 SCMR 2220. Feroz Din v. Fateh Khan etc.
In appeal from acquittal Supreme Court interferes only in exceptional cases, when either there is an error of law or a patent mistake of fact resulting in miscarriage of justice. 1989 SCMR 768. Sher Ahmed v. Akhtar Zaman.
Misreading of evidence by High Court and disregard of material evidence. Acquittal set aside, and sentenced to life imprisonment, u/S. 302, PPC. 1991 SCMR 94 Mian Rashid Ahmed v. Azeem Shah.
Distinction between appeal against acquittal and appeal from conviction, while appreciating evidence has to be made. Interference in the case of appeal from acquittal is to be made only when there is gross misreading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice. 1993 SCMR 585, State v. Sobharo; also see 1992 SCMR 489, Muhammad Usman etc.
Appeal against acquittal: Unless the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, completely illegal and on perusal of evidence no other conclusion could be made except the guilt of the accused, or there has been complete misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice High Court would not exercise jurisdiction u/S. sec., 417 Cr.P.C. 1992 SCMR 96, Yar Muhammad etc.
Appeal from acquittal in Supreme Court will not succeed unless all the grounds on which High Court had acquitted the accused are not supportable by evidence on record. 1992 SCMR 966, Sh. Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Malik.
Appeal against acquittal accepted to avoid miscarriage of justice to complainant party where the trial Court and High Court did not enter deep into the merits of the case and failed to discuss ocular as well as circumstantial evidence. 1992 SCMR 1036, Mst. Roheeda v. Khan Bahadar etc. NP Appeal against acquittal accepted by Supreme Court where the High Court had misread the evidence and had not considered the confession although it was corroborated by other pieces of evidence. Accused was sentenced to life imprisonment because of amnesty but fine was enhanced. 1992 SCMR 650, State v. Waqar Ahmed.
Different view possible in appeal. Decisions of Court in India based on evidence are not to be interfered with though another tribunal might have taken a different view. (PC) PLD 1959 PC 238 Suka v. King.
Mere existence of another possibility could not be considered as a valid ground for grant of appeal by Supreme Court, 1986 SCMR 1441. Muhammad Nazir v. Muhammad Ali.
Different view possible. Mere fact that the Supreme Court might have taken a different view is not sufficient to overrule findings of Courts below. (SC) PLJ 1967 SC 282 Ameen Ullah. 1990 SCMR 47 Faiz Muhammad v. Hidayat Khan.
Forged currency notes: Appeal from acquittal by State. As it was not proved that at the time of possession of the accused he knew that the notes were forged or had reason to believe them to be so; that these notes may be used as genuine or intending to use them as genuine. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 166, State v. Shah Nawaz etc.
Appeal from acquittal: just because another view is possible, the High Court was not justified in accepting appeal from acquittal. Acquittal restored. PLJ 1981 SC 601. Khuzab Gul.
Different view of a Court. In appeal from acquittal the mere fact of a higher Court taking a different view of evidence is not sufficient to overrule findings of a Court below. Accused, held been rightly given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 593 Muhabbat Khan v. Fatech Muhammad etc. PLJ 1993 SC 393 Fayyaz Akhtar.
Different of opinion regarding appreciation of evidence is not a good ground for setting aside acquittal. When reasons given by the trial Court were neither perverse nor fanciful and there was no misreading of evidence. Order of High Court convicting the accused was set aside 1993 SCMR 828, Fayyaz Akhtar.
High Court simply taking another view of the case and setting aside the acquittal by the trial Court, held, as the trial Court judgment was neither perverse nor misreading of evidence, acquittal restored. 1993 SCMR 1628, Zaheer Din. 1993 SCMR 828, Fayyaz Akhtar.
Just because another view was possible High Court could not reverse the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court when appraisal of evidence by that Court was neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence. PLJ 1993 SC. 353, Zaheer Din.
Whether defence version was possible, leave to appeal allowed to reappraise the evidence. 1986 SCMR 1549. Allah Yar.
Reduction of sentence by appellate Court. Mere fact of lesser sentence being more appropriate, the Supreme Court will not interfere in otherwise legal sentence. (SC) 1975 SCMR 232 Feroz.
Concurrent appeal of evidence by lower Courts cannot justify interference by Supreme Court when it is a broad daylight murder and two out of three P. Ws. injured. (SC) 1976 SCMR 220 Muhammad Khan etc.
Points already decided specifically against the appellant at the time of leave to appeal; same points cannot be agitated again at the time of hearing of the appeal. (SC) 1976 SCMR 199 Aurangzeb.
Leave to appeal: whole case to be considered, unless some points are specifically repelled in leave granting order; in a criminal case the whole case is opened up for examination. PLD 1978 SC 298. Muhammad Aslam.
Impugned Judgment of High Court suffering from infirmities, Supreme Court reappraised the evidence and restored the trial Court judgment. 1988 SCMR 1436 Manzur Hussain v. Muhammad Fazil etc.
Entire case may be reopened for doing complete justice once leave is granted to examine a particular point. It is within the discretion of the Court. Article 187 (1) of the Constitution does not distinguish between civil and criminal matters. (SC) PLD 1975 SC 295; PLJ 1975 206 Bibi Jan v. Habib Khan.
Whether High Court had correctly analyzed the evidence in accordance with the principles of safe administration of justice and had properly reached the conclusions appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective, leave to appeal granted. 1996 SCMR 1034, Haider Zaman v. Suleman etc.
For safe administration of justice leave to appeal granted to appraise the evidence in a life imprisonment case, 1995 SCMR 1083, Abdul Khaliq.
To reappraise the evidence for safe administration of justice, Leave to Appeal was granted by the Supreme Court. 1996 SCMR 308, Bashir Ahmed.
Grounds of admission do not debar other arguments. Not allowing grounds to be urged in criminal revision except those on which petition admitted disapproved. (FC) PLD 1953 145 Abdul Sattar Molla v. Crown.
Supreme Court Judge equally divided. Where four Judges of the Supreme Court are equally divided about the guilt of the accused, sentence of death confirmed by the High Court remains in the field. Appeal dismissed, (SC) PLJ 1976 SC 283 Ameen Ullah Contra. PLJ 1981 SC 822 Amin Ullah.
Judges equally divided. Judges of the Supreme Court equally divided. High Court judgment to remain in the filed (SC) 1967 SC 593. Mahabat Khan v. Fateh Muhammad etc. Contra PLJ 1981 822 Amin Ullah.
Where Supreme Court Judges equally divided, the appeal is to be referred to a larger bench. PLJ 1981 SC 822 Amin Ullah.
Appeal: Leave granted because of difference of opinion between the Judges of the Division Bench of High Court (SC) SCMR 72 Waheed-ud-Din v. Allah Ditta etc.
Petition for leave to appeal could be filed by heirs of the deceased. 1992 SCMR 1036, Mst. Roheeda v. Khan Bahadar etc.
State not filing appeal from acquittal judgments of two Courts belows, contention that the acquittal judgments should not be lightly interfered with by the Supreme Court repelled. Held, heirs of the deceased being the aggrieved party in strict sense there was no reason why the door of the Supreme Court be shut to them against the accused party when the acquittal had been secured which was not warranted by law, 1992 SCMR 1036 Mst. Roheeda v. Khan Bahadar etc.
Father of deceased is an aggrieved person although he is neither the first informant nor a witness in the case, and as such can challenge the High Court judgment of which he is dissatisfied; by way of petition for leave to appeal. 1995 SCMR 1007, Nawaz Khan v. Ghulam Shabbir etc. PLJ 1994 S.C. 549.
Complainant has a right to participate in appeal by accused appellant u/S. 3 of Enforcement of Sharia Act 1991. Petitioner's Counsel shall by well within right to oppose appeal of the convict. PLJ 1992 (Lah.) 118, Daulat v. Mohabbat etc.
Leave to appeal by third person against acquittal is competent and warrant of arrest can be issued. PLJ 1980 SC 318. Said Mian v. Mian Said.
Leave to appeal against acquittal granted as a acquittal was based on artificial grounds including improper rejection of testimony of three eye-witnesses supported by medical evidence, and judicial confession corroborated by incriminating recoveries. (SC) PLD 1975 SC 277 Abdur Rashid.
Plea of guilty; Appeal u/S. 412, Cr.P.C. lies even when plea of guilty is made when no offence appears to have been committed from the facts of case. A person cannot be convicted only on the plea of guilty when neither the plea nor the facts of the case, disclose any offence. PLD 1976 Pesh. 144 Ghulam Rasul.
New plea in PSLA in Supreme Court; the point which was never raised by the petitioner either before the trial Court or before the High Court in appeal could not be allowed to be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court. PLD 1995 S.C. 46, Mushtaq alias Shaman.
Appreciation of evidence. No principle of appreciation of evidence violated by the High Court. Murder case bristling with falsehood and embellishments order of acquittal passed by the High Court not interfered with. (SC) PLJ 1976 SC 431. Mohabat Khan v. Fateh Muhammad etc.
Appeal from acquittal. High Court did not violate any principle of law nor any material piece of evidence was ignored. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1982 SC 492. Mian Said v. Said Mian.
Discretion exercised by High Court should not normally be interfered with unless the order is capricious or arbitrary. (SC) NLR 1982 Cr. 154 Muhammad Imran v. Gohar Rehman.
Re-appraisal of evidence not done by Supreme Court where no misreading of evidence of any material portion or gross misappreciation of evidence done by Court below. PLJ 1982 SC 356. Muhammad Yousaf.
Leave to appeal granted to consider whether eye-witnesses were reliable and trustworthy. 1985 SCMR 1861. Yara.
Judgment neither perverse nor reasons given in support artificial. eye-witnesses interested, motive rightly discarded, medical evidence hardly connecting respondents with murder; leave to appeal against acquittal refused. PLJ 1995 S.C. 261, Haji Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Faryad Ali etc.
No decision of Supreme Court on point of law existing. Leave to appeal allowed PLD 1984 SC 435, Ishfaq Ahmed.
Re-appraisal of evidence. Supreme Court will not hesitate to re-appraise evidence when High Court has not appreciated evidence in accordance with settled principles of appreciation of evidence. PLD 1978 SC 298. Muhammad Aslam.
Factual aspect of the case exclusive domain of trial Court and appellate Court. Supreme Court refused to interfere when no legal error was committed by Courts below. PLJ 1993 S.c. 118, Mirza Noor Hussain v. Farooq Zaman etc.
To re-appraise the evidence leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court for proper administration of criminal justice. 1992 SCMR 2325, Javid Masih. Also see 1992 SCMR 2327, Muhammad Maroof.
Re-appraisal of evidence is not the function of Supreme Court. No misreading of evidence pointed out. Acquittal by High Court maintained. 1993 SCMR 944, Muhammad Altaf etc. v. Muzaffar Hussain etc.
Reappraisal of evidence is not the function of the Supreme Court. No misreading of evidence pointed out. Acquittal by High Court maintained. 1993 SCMR 944, Muhammad Altaf etc. v. Muzaffar Hussain etc.
For-re-appraisal of evidence on certain points formulated in the judgment leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court, 1993 SCMR 544, Abdul Aziz.
Leave to appeal granted for re-appraisal of evidence on the ground whether the conviction could be sustained on basis of ocular evidence. Case was remanded in appeal from acquittal. 1993 SCMR 87, Sojhro Khan v. Ghulam Mumtaz.
Re-appraisal of evidence is not the function of the Supreme Court. No misreading of evidence pointed out. Conviction upheld. 1993 SCMR 944, Muhammad Altaf v. Muzaffar Hussain.
Re-appraisal of evidence by Supreme Court. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question whether the two Courts below properly appraised the evidence on record and whether they failed to take into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case. 1992 SCMR 1258, Ghulam Farid.
Decisions on questions of fact are not open to challenge in the Supreme Court unless there is any illegality, misreading of non-reading to evidence. 1992 SCMR 2276, Shahadat etc.
Re-appraisal of evidence by Supreme Court, in interest of justice. Leave granted. NLR 1981 Cr. 255 Hayat Muhammad etc. NLR 1981 Cr. 261. Waris etc.
Re-apprraisement of evidence. Supreme Court would not hesitate to interfere in order to protect interest of justice when finding is arrived at in disregard of material evidence or is based on misreading of evidence (SC) PLD 1977 SC 529. Fazal Rehman v. Abdul Ghani.
Appraisal of evidence by trial Court endorsed by High Court. Supreme Court in appeal would not interfere unless serious question of law arises or findings are otherwise palpably perverse. (SC) 1977 SC 44. Muhammad Ashraf etc.
Whether High Court had appraised evidence according to sound principles laid down for administration of criminal justice, leave to appeal granted. 1996 SCMR 928 Masha Khan v. Chamai Khan and another.
Appreciation of evidence is not a normal function of Supreme Court unless disregard of principles of appreciation of evidence is established. (SC) 41 Mehr Khan. PLJ 1977 SC 89. 1986 SCMR 1110 (1) Ghazi Khan, 1986 SCMR 110 (2) Allah Yar etc.
Distinction: Appeal, and "Leave to Appeal". Supreme Court not inhibited by Privy Council or Federal Court practices, in criminal matters. Then is distinction between appeal as of right and petition for grant of leave for appeal nevertheless. If the distinction is obliterated the provision in the Constitution separately dealing with the appeal as of right and appeal by special leave of Court would be redundant. (SC) 1977 SC 98 Mehr Khan PLD 1977 SC 41.
Leave granted for misreading or non-consideration of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice. 1988 SCMR 659. Khusi Muhammad v. Muhammad Jamil.
Persons not heard in appeal, defect removed when heard in revision. PLD 1977 Lah. 342. Ali Muhammad etc. v. CLC etc.
Jurisdiction: Federal Shariat Court to hear all appeals from final orders. Any aggrieved person competent to appeal. First appeals from convictions are admitted as of right without preliminary hearing. Federal Shariat Court is Court of law as well as of fact for all appeals. Appeal from acquittal or for enhancements is to be admitted after hearing. PLJ 1982 FSE 23 Muhammad Hussain.
Appeal to Federal Shariat Court. Powers of Court under section 20 of Ordinance VII of 1979 are unfettered. The Court can examine question of fact and law and can quash, confirm, modify or enhance sentence. 1981 PSC 76. Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Ramzan.
Revision petition to High Court is not competent in Hudood cases. Revisional powers in Hudood cases are exclusively vested in Federal Shariat Court by Article 203-DD read with Article 203-G of the Constitution. NLR 1985 Cr. 306. Muhammad Ilyas.
Where appellants were tried for Zina u/Ss. 10, 11 & 18 of Zina Hudood Ordinance VII of 1979 but were convicted u/S. 354 PPC, held their appeal was to be made to the Federal Shariat Court and not to the High Court. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 155, Manzoor.
mercy discretion u/ss. 402 & 402-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be scrutinised under writ jurisdiction. (DB) PLD 1969 Lah. 71. Mir Zaman v. Secretary to Govt.
Accused not appealing to Supreme Court in time acquitted. 6 accused appealed to Supreme Court and were acquitted. The case of 7th accused at par with other acquitted accused. Benefit extended to 7th accused who filed appeal later on after the acquittal of 6 co-accused. Supreme Court did complete justice without going into question of appeal being time barred. 1985 SCMR 1971. Mumtaz.
Although no appeal filed yet under Article 203-DD the Federal Shariat Court has power to examine record. The case of the co-accused who had not appealed was also considered by the Federal Shariat Court. PLJ 1997 FSC 16, Akbar Hussain.
Victim of Zina-bil-Jabr acquitted without appeal. Although convict had not appealed the Court under suo motu revisional power set aside her conviction and sentence for Zina while acquitting the co-accused in appeal. PLJ 1995 FSC 166, Suleman.
Reduction of sentence of non-appealing accused allowed on the ground that the accused were neither previous convicts nor dealers in narcotics. Non-appealing convict was also extended the benefit, PLJ 1991 FSC 90. Muhammad Roshan.
Non-appealing accused also acquitted. Prosecution failing to establish case against accused, Supreme Court while acquitting accused appellants also acquitted non-appealing accused convicts. 1985 SCMR 662. Muhabat Ali etc.
Case of appellant at par with acquitted co-accused. Following rule of consistency the accused appellant also acquitted. 1996 SCMR 1549, Tanvir Ahmed and another.
Case of appellant at par with the acquitted co-accused. 5 co-accused acquitted on benefit of doubt which was not challenged by the State or the complainant. Appellant accused also acquitted. 1997 SCMR 385, Zahoor Elahi etc.
Case of appellant at par with acquitted co-accused, the appellant also extended benefit of doubt and acquitted. PLJ 1995 Cr. C. (Pesh) 1 (D.B) Haider Zaman etc.
Case of acquitted co-accused not distinguishable from the appellant, the conviction of the appellant on same insufficient evidence could not be sustained. Appellant acquitted. 1995 SCMR 733, Rehmat.
Case of acquitted co-accused at par with the appellant. No corroborative evidence against the appellant. Appellant acquitted. (DB) NLR 1982 Cr. 672 (2) Muhammad Tufail. NLR 1982 Cr. 686. Talib Hussain.
Case of the acquitted accused at par with the appellant. Appellant also acquitted. 1997 SCMR 254, Tariq Khan. = PLJ 1997 SC 146.
Judicial Commissioner Northern Areas (Gilgit), is not a High Court, therefore appeal from the judgment, decree or final order does not lie to Supreme Court. 1983 SCMR 542. Shakoor Muhammad.
High Court Judges inspect the place of detention of appellants after giving notice to the State when requested by the appellants. 1892 SCMR 321. State v. Asfandyar Wali etc.
Withdrawal of appeal u/S. 417 (2), Cr.P.C. by special leave to appeal cannot be allowed. It must be decided on merits. NLR 1985 Cr. 20. Muhammad Sarwar v. Niaz Ahmad etc.
Appeal from acquittal to Supreme Court is to be entertained when the view taken by the High Court is found to be wholly artificial, shocking or ridiculous. If the view is possible then the Supreme Court will not interfere. PLJ 1985 SC 74. Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamrez Khan.
Illicit relations of deceased, with wife of appellant. Leave granted to consider whether appellant deserved lesser penalty. 1985 SCMR 557. Muhammad Sadiq.
Leave to appeal on question of sentence only granted by Supreme Court and in view of age of accused at the time of occurrence being 15/16 years, motive being to avenge the murder of his father. Death sentence reduced to life imprisonment but fine enhanced from Rs. 2000 to Rs. 25,000/- PLD 1985 SC 257 Muhammad Aslam.
For safe and sound administration of criminal justice certain features of the case require close scrutiny hence leave to appeal allowed. 1982 SCMR 387. Arif Hussain.
Review. Judgment signed by two Judges of Supreme Court who had not heard the case. Contended that it was not a legal judgment. Held, a fit case of review.1988 SCMR 911. Muhammad Shafiq.
Second revision. See inherent powers, section 439-A, Cr.P.C. and section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Arguments wrongly attributed to the defence counsel. Review allowed judgments recalled and appeals re-heard. However, conviction of Patwari Malik Muhammad Khan for corruption maintained and sentence enhanced from one undergone (20 days) to three years. 1988 SCMR 1476 Malik Muhammad Khan.
Review in Supreme Court (O. XXLI R. 1 & O. 47 R. 1 CPC) is competent only when: There is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of the due diligence was not within knowledge of parties seeking review. An order can also be reviewed on account of some mistake or error appearant on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. PLJ 1997 SC 532, Bise Lahore v. Bashir Ahmed Khan.
Supreme Court order recalled on review when the Supreme Court while deciding the appeal had overlooked the fact that the statement of witness in question was disbelieved by the trial Court and no weight was given to it by the High Court. Such error was patent on the face of the record 1994 SCMR 492, Barkat Ali v. Arshad Ali etc.
Revision against acquittal in complaint case to Sessions Court is not competent. Impugned order by Sessions Court quashed. Held, the complainant approached wrong forum. He should have made petition for leave to appeal to the High Court, u/S. 417 Cr.P.C. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lah.) 878, Muhammad Safdar etc.
Leave to appeal u/S. 418 (2), Cr.P.C. when allowed the petitioner has to file appeal or not as he wishes. Petition for leave to appeal cannot be converted into appeal. PLD 1988 Pesh. 130 Muhammad Akbar v. Qasim etc.
Appeal from acquittal by Special Court is not competent as Ordinance IX of 1984 does not give any right of appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal Sec. 10(1) of the Ordinance provides appeal to the High Court against the sentence passed by the Special Court. There is no right of appeal provided against the judgment of acquittal. Writ petition with its usual limitations will be available. 1993 SCMR 1853. Habib Bank Ltd.
Appeal against acquittal direct to Federal Shariat Court is violation of sec. 417 Cr.P.C. being incompetent was dismissed. PLD 1994 FSC 15, Qasim Jan v.Hamesh Gul etc.
Appeal from acquittal to Supreme Appellate Court is competent. Supreme Court Appellate Court is not part of Supreme Court, therefore Supreme Court Rules are not applicable to Supreme Appellate Court. 1992 SCMR 372, Liaqat Ali etc.
The case of appellant at par with acquitted accused. Evidence on record surrounding circumstances and inferences could be fairly drawn therefrom indicated that the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot. Held, benefit of doubt was available to the appellant. 1994 SCMR 1148, Muhammad Yousaf.
Review; Criminal Appeal should not have been dismissed for non-prosecution. The counsel could not get a seat by air to reach Islamabad on the date fixed by the Court. The reason was genuine. Secondly as held in the cases of: PLD 1970 S.C. 177, Muhammad Ashiq Faqir v. State and 1986 SCMR 58, Muhammad Bukhsh v. State, keeping in view Sec. 423 Cr.P.C. that the absence of an appellant or his pleader on the date of hearing does not relieve the Court from the duty of perusing the record and giving reason in support of the judgment that there was no reason for interfering with the judgment appealed from. By virtue of Rule 12 of Supreme Court Rules and Orders, Order 23, the provisions of Order 22 apply to appeals under Art. 185(3). There is no provision under Order 22 apply to appeals under Art. 185(3). There is no provision under Order 22 for dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution. Appeal restored. PLJ 1995 S.C. 21, Fozail Merchant. PLD 1994 S.C. 842.
Supreme Court in this case exercised original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and 4(1)(2)(a) and 9 of the Constitution when the appeal is provided by law, and the judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court was patently illegal on the face of it, and hence without jurisdiction. PLD 1994 S.C. 885, Khalil-uz-Zaman v. Supreme Court Appellate Court, Lahore and 4 others PLJ 1994 S.C. 532.
Review of judgment of Supreme Court is permitted only on ground of error apparent on the face of the record. Error may be of fact of law. PLJ 1996 S.C. 471, Yaqub Khan etc.
Exhumation of dead body u/S. 176(2) Cr.P.C. can be ordered by a Magistrate to determine the cause of death. Exhumation of dead body ordered for fresh post-mortem examination. Writ Petition treated as petition u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. PLJ 1995 Lah. 384, Khizar Hayat v. District Magistrate Jhang.