NUR AHMED AND Others vs PUTUL RANI PAUL AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of East Pakistan, which had dismissed the petitioners' criminal revision application. The petitioners were originally convicted under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for trespassing onto the complainant's land and harvesting paddy, receiving a fine of Rs. 50 each, with default imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by the trial Magistrate and the appellate court regarding the petitioners' guilt. The Supreme Court held that since the concurrent findings of the lower courts were firmly based on the evidence of six eye-witnesses, the High Court acted correctly in refusing to interfere with those findings in its revisional jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not typically disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when such findings are supported by credible evidence, and the High Court is justified in upholding such findings in revision.
- Can the High Court interfere in revision with concurrent findings of fact based on evidence?
- Is the Supreme Court likely to grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioners were convicted under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, each and in default, to suffer rigorous imprison--ment for one month, each. The petitioners' appeal against their conviction and sentences was dismissed. A revisional application moved in the High Court of East Pakistan by the petitioners was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of that Court. The petitioners now seek special leave against the order of the High Court dismissing that criminal revision.
2. The allegation against the petitioners was that they trespassed into the land of the complainant Putul Rani Paul on the 14th July 1967, and reaped away half-ripe paddy grown in that land by the complainant. The petitioners pleaded innocence 'and took the defence that the land was in possession of one Abul Faiz and that it was he who had cut and taken away the paddy. The prosecu--tion examined six witnesses including the complainant. They were all eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Their evidence was believed by both the trying Magistrate and the appellate Court.
3. As this concurrent finding was based on evidence, the learned Judge of the High Court was right in refusing to interfere in revision.
4. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.