| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 68 1966 SLD 68 1966 PLD 424 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1965, decision dated: 3rd February 1966.
S., A. RAHMAN, FAZLEAKBAR, HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
Muhammad Shafi Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (Shaukat All Khawaja Advocate, Supreme Court with him), instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Attorney for Appellant. Javed Iqbal Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Mushtaq Iqbal Ahmad Siddiqui Advocate, S
Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1965, decision dated: 3rd February 1966.
S., A. RAHMAN, FAZLEAKBAR, HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
Muhammad Shafi Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (Shaukat All Khawaja Advocate, Supreme Court with him), instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chatha, Attorney for Appellant. Javed Iqbal Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Mushtaq Iqbal Ahmad Siddiqui Advocate, S
FEROZE KHAN
VS
CAPTAIN GHULAM NABI KHAN AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Granted to consider whether revisional order of High Court setting aside acquittal of accused and remanding case for re-decision by appellate Court was properly made-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439-Revisional powers of High Court-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 or fanciful manner. Interference in revision under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 need not be confined to cases where the order of the Court below is "manifestly wrong or perverse of is based on the view of the evidence which no judicial officer would take". In appropriate cases, even finding of fact could be disturbed in revision. This would be possible, for instance, where the subordinate Court had wrongly allocated the onus of proof in not applying the correct principles, relating to the appraisal of evidence, or some important piece of evidence had been ignored. The discretion vesting in the High Court under section 439 of the Code, however, has to be exercised in accordance with the dictates of justice and not arbitrarily, or in a fanciful manner. Anwar and others v. The Crown 'P L D 1955 F C 185 and Muhammad Samiullah Khan sand another v. The State P L D 1963 S C 237 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439-Revision against acquittal-Court not to interfere unless non-interference would involve endorsement of patently unfair order or one which leads to miscarriage of justice. In cases of revision petitions from acquittal, where the State has not thought fit to challenge the acquittal by an appeal, the Courts would be very slow to interfere, unless non-interference would involve an endorsement of a patently unfair order, or one which leads to miscarriage of justice. If the view taken by the Courts below is reasonably possible on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, then…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492