MUHAMMAD DIN vs MRs, Z. A. MALIK and others
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of his criminal complaint. The petitioner had filed a complaint under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 against the respondents, alleging misconduct. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the High Court affirmed this decision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he should have been permitted to produce further evidence to substantiate his allegations. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioner failed to provide any foundational documentation, such as an appointment letter, proof of employment, or a service book, to support his claims. The Court held that allowing further evidence would have served no purpose given the complete lack of initial evidence to support the petitioner's assertions. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can a court refuse to allow the production of further evidence if the petitioner fails to establish a basic evidentiary foundation for their claims?
- Is an appellate court justified in dismissing a petition for leave to appeal where the petitioner failed to substantiate allegations in the trial court?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 1st. November, 1988 whereby petition for special leave to appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the petitioner had filed a complaint under section 409/419/420/468/471 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 in the Court of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore against the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the complaint. Thereupon the petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore challenging the order of the trial Court, but as stated above it was dismissed.
3. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal. The petitioner did not succeed in either of the Courts because he could not establish any of the allegations levelled by him as against the respondents.
4. ' It was contended by learned counsel before us that the petitioner should have been allowed to produce further evidence and that if the petitioner had been so permitted by the trial Court he could have established his case. But this arguments was raised before both the Courts and was rejected for numerous reasons e.g. That he was not in possession of any letter of appointment showing that he was an employee of the school of which respondent No,1 was Headmistress, he could not produce any document that he ever worked as a peon in the said school, he could not show anything from which it could be inferred that he received his salary from the school funds and that even he had no service book to produce. Consequently it had been rightly held that even if he had been according to him, permitted to produce the entire evidence, that would have not served any purpose.
5. ' Since this is the position no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed.