This Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing an appeal against acquittal. The core legal question was whether a non-speaking judgment applying the principle of double presumption of innocence without examining or discussing the evidence on record is legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that while the principle of double presumption of innocence following acquittal is well-established, it is attracted only after the Court considers the legal and factual aspects and discusses the evidence to confirm that no evidence was overlooked and that the trial court rightly acquitted the accused. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the non-speaking High Court judgment, and remanded the matter to the High Court to re-write the judgment based on the record, preferably within three months. The Court reaffirmed the principle that acquittal orders require judicial discussion of evidence before applying double presumption.
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal has been filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against judgment dated 23-9-2010 of Lahore High Court, Lahore; concluding para therefrom reads as under:-- "We are not impressed with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have gone through the impugned judgment, which is quite in accordance with law. Moreover, when an accused is acquitted by a competent court, double presumption of innocence is attached. No case for interference by this Court in the impugned judgment is made out. This appeal stands dismissed.
2. Marshaling of the facts in depth is not called for because on having gone through the relevant para of the impugned judgment, we were persuaded to question to Mr. A.D. Naseem, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents as to whether the impugned judgment being non-speaking one is sustainable in the eyes of law. No doubt, the learned High Court while dismissing the appeal applied the principle namely double presumption of innocence in view of order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. As far as the principle of double presumption of innocence is concerned, there is no cavil to it, but at the same time this principle would only be, attracted, if the Court on having discussed the evidence come to the conclusion that no piece of evidence has been left out and on the basis of evidence on record, learned trial Court rightly held the accused as innocent and not involved in the commission of offence. The High Court, under the circumstances, may have considered the factual as well as legal aspects of the case before applying the principle of double presumption of innocence in favour of the respondent. In this behalf, reference may be made to Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 11), wherein this principle has been elaborately discussed and highlighted by the superior Courts.
3. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the case in hand deserves to be remanded to the learned High Court for re-writing of the judgment, keeping in view the material available on record. Accordingly, the listed petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The case is remanded to the High Court with the observation that let the learned High Court dispose of the same expeditiously, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months.