Pakistan Case Law
1970 SCMR 282

PIRAN DITTA vs THE STATE And 2 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1970 SCMR 282
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 1968 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 86
Date1969-10-08
Judge(s)Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Sajjad Ahmad and Wahiduddin Ahmad
Authored byWahiduddin Ahmad
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which acquitted the respondents. The petition was barred by five days. The core legal question before the court was whether the delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal could be condoned on the ground that the petitioner was unaware of the reserved judgment's announcement until a later date. The Supreme Court held that the delay could not be condoned, noting that the explanation regarding lack of notice does not suffice unless the petitioner was prevented by an act of the respondent from filing the petition in time. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as barred by time. The key principle laid down is that in acquittal matters, delay is condoned only where the petitioner is prevented by an act of the respondent from filing the petition for special leave to appeal within the prescribed limitation period.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal be condoned due to lack of notice of a reserved judgment?
  • Under what circumstances is delay condoned in acquittal matters before the Supreme Court?
special leave to appeallimitationcondonation of delayacquittalsupreme court

ORDER

1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, acquitting the respondents. The petition is barred by five days.

2. The only ground urged to condone the delay is that the judgment of the High Court had been kept, reserved and the petitioner could not notice its announcement. It is stated that the petitioner learnt about the judgment on the 4th March 1969, and applied for obtaining the certified copy on the same date. It is submitted that the delay in filing the petition is not deliberate and intentional. The explanation, given by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration because the petitioner was not prevented by the respondents to file the present petition. The view of this Court is that delay in acquittal matters is condoned only in those cases where the petitioner is prevented by an act of the respondent to file the petition for special leave to appeal in time.

3. We are, therefore, unable to condone the delay. The petition is, dismissed as barred by time.

Cited by 19 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.