MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns review petitions filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, seeking a re-examination of the evidence and arguments previously adjudicated in the impugned judgment. The core legal question before the Court was whether the scope of review jurisdiction allows for the reappraisement of evidence or the re-argument of a case on its merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the review jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction and cannot be invoked merely to seek a re-evaluation of facts or evidence already considered. The Court affirmed that review cannot be granted on the ground that certain facts require reappraisement, nor can it be used to re-argue a case on merits or introduce additional grounds. The key principle laid down is that the scope of a review petition is strictly limited; it does not permit the re-examination of evidence or the re-litigation of arguments that have already been comprehensively decided in the original judgment. Consequently, finding no merit in the petitions, the Court dismissed them.
- Can a review petition be granted on the ground that facts require reappraisement by the Supreme Court?
- Is it permissible to re-argue a case on its merits within the scope of a review petition?
- Does the scope of review jurisdiction allow for the re-examination of evidence already considered in the impugned judgment?
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J.---Heard Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC at length on behalf of petitioner and Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned Sr. ASC for complainant in the above captioned review petitions which are being disposed of by this order being identical in nature.
2. All the arguments made today have been considered and decided in a comprehensive manner in the judgment impugned. In fact Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC wanted re-examination and re-evaluation A of the entire evidence once again which we are afraid cannot be done while dilating upon these review petition. It is well settled by now that review cannot be granted on the ground that certain facts require reappraisement by Supreme Court. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Basharat Khan v. The State (1984 SCMR 1033) (1), Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v.
State (PLD 1979 SC 741), Muhammad Nazir v. State (1979 SCM R 89), Kala Khan v. Misri Khan (1979 SCM R 347), Saghir Ali v. Mehr Din (1968 SCM R 729). There is no cavil to the proposition that review cannot be granted for merely re-examination of the same arguments. Re-arguing a case on merits as well as additional grounds is beyond the scope of review petition. In this regard reference can be made to Manzoor Hussain v. Zohra Bibi (PLD 1990 SC 924), Haji Muhammad Sarwar v. Mian Asad Hakim and others (1983 SCM R 177), Jalal v. Nazir Ahmad (1980 SCM R 320). The above captioned review petitions being devoid of merits are accordingly dismissed.