M. SHAHID GHAFOOR vs MUHAMMAD RASHID and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent was acquitted of criminal charges. The petition was barred by 67 days, and the petitioner sought condonation of delay on the ground of lack of knowledge regarding the High Court decision. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal could be condoned on the stated ground and whether the petitioner exercised sufficient vigilance. The Supreme Court held that the explanation offered for the delay was unsatisfactory, emphasizing that a litigant has a duty to remain vigilant about pending proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the lapse of time in criminal matters provides protection to an acquitted accused against further judicial process. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal and declined leave.
- Whether lack of knowledge regarding a High Court judgment is a sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a petitioner obliged to remain vigilant about the proceedings pending before the High Court?
- Does the lapse of time in criminal matters provide protection to an acquitted accused against further judicial process?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDIIRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 28th March 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby criminal appeal filed by respondent No,1 has been allowed and he has been acquitted.
2. This petition is barred by 67 days. Alongwith memo. Of petition, an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay on the ground that petitioner had no knowledge about the decision of the High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have also gone through the application for condonation of delay. We are not ready to accept the explanation offered for condonation of delay in application because it is the duty of the petitioner to remain vigilant about the proceedings pending before the High Court. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgment reported as Fakhar-ud-Din v. Fazal Karim and others 1999 SCM R 795 where in it has been held that "lapse of time, in a criminal matter, is sufficient to provide protection to the accused who had been acquitted, against further judicial process through the petition for leave to appeal". Besides, respondent No,1 has already undergone the imprisonment for about five months before passing of the order by the learned High Court.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this petition as such the same is dismissed and leave declined.