UMER HAYAT and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for an offense under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the addition of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners challenged the conviction on grounds of improper appreciation of evidence regarding recoveries and false implication, and further contended that the trial was illegal due to the repeal of the Ordinance under which the trial court exercised jurisdiction upon the enactment of Act XV of 1987. The Supreme Court declined to re-appraise the evidence, noting that the lower courts had already adjudicated upon it. Regarding the legal challenge, the Court held that the trial was valid, as section 15 of Ordinance II of 1987 expressly saved previous proceedings and judgments. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The judgment affirms the principle that appellate courts will generally not re-appraise evidence already considered by lower courts and that savings clauses in new legislation preserve the validity of prior judicial proceedings.
- Does the enactment of a new statute automatically invalidate proceedings conducted under a repealed Ordinance?
- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence already considered by two lower courts in a criminal appeal?
- Does section 15 of Ordinance II of 1987 save proceedings and judgments rendered by a trial court prior to the repeal of the Ordinance?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 15, Ordinance II of 1987
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court by judgment dated 11-4-1989 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners against their conviction and sentence recorded by the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials, Gujranwala, under section 392, P.P.C. The only change made by the High Court was that section 34, P.P.C. Was added which appeared to have been omitted by the trial Court at the time of trial.
2. ' Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition raised three points--first that the trial Court wrongly relied upon the recovery of motorcycle and gun; second that the petitioners had been falsely implicated, they were innocent, the evidence led by the prosecution did not prove the case beyond doubt. Finally, that on coming into force of Act XV of 1987, the Ordinance under which the trial Court had the jurisdiction to try stood repealed, hence the trial as well as conviction was illegal.
3. The first two points concern the appreciation of the evidence. It has been done by the two Courts below and, therefore, we are not prepared to re-appraise the evidence.
4. ' Even the third point has no force because we find that the High Court dealt with it in accordance with law and did not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel before the High Court. Even, otherwise section 15 of Ordinance II of 1987 saves the previous proceedings and judgment of the trial Court.
5. ' Hence, we don't find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.