Pakistan Case LawMst. GHAFOORAN Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court whereby the petitioner's revision petition against the acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 7—who had been initially convicted by the trial court under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but acquitted in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge—was dismissed. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition through a non-speaking order without discussing the evidence on record. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to discuss the evidence and pass a speaking order despite the availability of sufficient evidence recorded by the trial court. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that an appellate or revisional court must examine the evidence and render a speaking order when evaluating concurrent or conflicting findings.
- Whether the High Court is required to pass a speaking order discussing the evidence while dismissing a revision petition against acquittal?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the High Court dismisses a revision petition without proper evaluation of the evidence on record?
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 4-12-1993.
2.Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were convicted by the M.I.C. Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, under sections 468, 471, P.P.0 and sentenced to 2 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,1000, in default of payment of fine 6 months' R.I. They were further convicted under section 420, P.P.C. And sentenced to 2 years' R.I. And Rs,500 as fine, in default thereof 2 months' R.I. Respondent No, 7, Mst. Sakina, was convicted under section 468/471 and sentenced to 2 years' S.I. With fine of Rs,1,000, in default thereof 4 months' S.I. She was further convicted under section 420, P.P.C. And sentenced to 2 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,500 and in default thereof to undergo 2 months' S.I. The respondents' appeal against their conviction was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, vide order dated 31-10-1984. The petitioner challenged the respondents' acquittal in the High Court, but the learned Judge. In Chamber maintained the order. The High Court dismissed the revision petition for the following reasons:--
"However, learned counsel for the petitioner having gone through the entire evidence could not dislodge the findings. Consequently the petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed."
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judge in Chamber has not discussed the evidence and has not passed a speaking order. There is sufficient evidence on the record on the basis of which the conviction of the respondents is recorded by the trial Court.
4.Leave is granted.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Sajjad Ali Shah1,895 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments