| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2787 = 1962 SLD 2787 = 1962 PLD 249 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1961, decided on 12th March 1962.
Presented By:A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
Nasim Hassan Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Naziruddin Attorney for Appellants. M. Anwar Advocate-General West Pakistan (M. B. Zaman Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for
Respondent No. 1. Miss R. S. sari Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Siddiq & Company Attorneys for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Date of hearing : 12th March, 1962
Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1961, decided on 12th March 1962.
Presented By:A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
Nasim Hassan Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Naziruddin Attorney for Appellants. M. Anwar Advocate-General West Pakistan (M. B. Zaman Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for
Respondent No. 1. Miss R. S. sari Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Siddiq & Company Attorneys for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Date of hearing : 12th March, 1962
ABDUR RASHID AND OTHERS-Appellants
VERSUS
THE STATE AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1956
Section: Art. 160
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore. dated the 8th July, 1959, in Criminal Revision No. 213 of 1958). Special leave to appeal to Supreme Court----Granted to consider whether order for re-trial was made "in accordance with right principles"-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 160. Re-trial------When not to be ordered-Existence of circum stances which do not support prosecution case but which make defence version "possible". Where the prosecution witnesses are affected by partisanship, or their evidence gives rise to doubts of a reasonable character, or there are circumstances which do not support the: prosecution case, and may lend support to the defence case, so as to render the defence version a possible one, there to remand the case for a re-trial may amount merely to presenting a doubtful prosecution case before a Court of first instance for another opinion. In such circumstances, indications contained in the order of remand as to how doubts may be resolved, or that despite the appearance of partisanship, a witness may yet be speaking the truth on a particular point and other such expressions of opinion might be calculated to interfere with the course of justice. Re-trial----Supreme Court abstained from expressing opinion on points of fact where High Court's order for re-trial was held to be correct. Re-trial----When not, improper-Trial Court's conclusions (in judgment of acquittal) not supported by "balanced statement of relevant facts or by truly reasoned arguments"-Re-trial order held to be correct. Re-trial-----High Court's order for re-trial (in case of acquittal) attempting "exhaustive analysis" of case and evidence relating to principal elements and expressing opinions "not lacking in directness" but, at same time, cautioning lower Court against treating such opinions as "binding"-Re-trial, held not improper. JUDGMENT P L D 1962 Supreme Court 249 CORNELIUS, C. J.-----This is an appeal by special leave granted to Abdur Rashid and 4 other persons who have been ordered by the High…