AZHAR IQBAL and others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a review petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a previous judgment, which was barred by 130 days. The core legal question was whether ongoing efforts toward a compromise between the parties constitute sufficient cause for condoning a substantial delay in filing a review petition against a capital sentence. The Court held that the pendency of compromise negotiations does not constitute sufficient cause to condone such delay, particularly because the remedy of compounding an offence remains available before the trial court under the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition as time-barred and devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that a mere hope or effort for a compromise does not justify the condonation of delay in filing a review petition in a criminal matter.
- Whether efforts for a compromise between the parties constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a review petition?
- Can a review petition barred by time be entertained when the plea for compromise can be raised before the trial court?
- Does the expectation of a compromise justify the delay in challenging a capital punishment?
- Section 338-E, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. This review petition is barred by 130 days for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed wherein in paras.1 to 5 he has stated the grounds for condoning the delay stating that there were efforts for compromise between the parties and there was still hope that the compromise could take place between the parties and facing this situation, the delay in filing of review petition has occurred due to optimum hope of the compromise which is normally expected when a person is awarded capital punishment. We do not consider it as a sufficient cause for examining the review on merits considering the fact that this very plea could be agitated by the petitioner which has been made as one of the ground for review before the trial Court as provided under section 338-E, P.P.C., read with section 345, Cr.P.C., which Court could permit the compounding of offence between the petitioner and L.Rs, of the deceased in accordance with law.
In the circumstances, finding petition barred by time and no case for review, the same is dismissed.