SHUKAR DIN vs INAMULLAH And Another
The petitioner, a complainant in a criminal case, challenged a High Court order that remanded a murder conviction for a fresh trial. The respondent had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. During the appeal, the High Court observed that a cross-case filed by the accused had not been tried or concluded in accordance with established legal principles regarding the simultaneous trial of cross-cases. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for a fresh trial. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel conceded that the remand order could not be legally assailed regarding the failure to follow the established rule of practice for cross-cases. The petitioner argued that the defect should have been raised earlier by the respondent, but the Supreme Court rejected this, emphasizing the duty of all parties and counsel to assist the court in ensuring justice. Finding no justification for interference, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the necessity of adhering to established procedural rules for cross-cases.
- Is a High Court justified in remanding a criminal case for fresh trial when a cross-case was not tried in accordance with established legal principles?
- Does the duty to assist the court in ensuring a fair trial rest solely on the accused or also on the complainant?
- Can a party challenge a remand order if they concede that the underlying procedural defect regarding cross-cases was not addressed at the trial stage?
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ: --The complainant side in a challan case has called in question the remand of the case by the High Court on appeal filed by the accused/convict in the said case.
2. According to learned counsel the respondent Inamullah was challaned in a case registered by the police on the complaint of the petitioner. He was convicted for murder with the sentence of life imprisonment and fine. During the hearing of the appeal the learned Judge in the High Court discovered that the complaint case filed from the accused side which purported to be cross-case had not been tried and concluded in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts from time to time. As a result the respondent's appeal was allowed and the case was remanded for fresh trial in accordance with law.
3. After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the aforenoticed rule of practice had not been satisfied and that in so far as the legality of the order of remand is concerned, it may not be possible to assail the same.
4. He, however, . Vehemently argued that this defect should have been pointed out at the trial stage by the other side. But he failed to advance the point any further when questioned as to why the petitioner side did not perform the same duty to the Court--as all the parties and their counsel were bound to assist the Court in pursuance of the rule of good conduct in the Court; namely, when seeking justice do justice. This saluable rule of practice has also the support of Islamic jurisprudence.
5. In the fight of the foregoing discussion no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Leave, to appeal, therefore, is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- Fazl-e-Khaliq vs Neloofar Yousafzai 2022 PHC 394
- MUHAMMAD SADDIQ AND ANOTHER Versus MST. RUQAYA KHANUM AND OTHERS 2001 PLD 60
- FAZL-E-KHALIQ Versus Dr. NELOOFAR YOUSAFZAI 2023 CLC 515