Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs THE STATE Case No.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.8 of 1989 Date of Judgment:1991-03-27 Reported As: 1992 P Cr. L J 1686 Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT Nazar Hussain and others, on the complaint of Muhammad Hafeez, petitioners, were tried under section 506/342/148, P.P.C. By E.A.C./Assistant Commissioner, Garh Maharaja, who ultimately acquitted them on 16-10-1988. Against this acquittal, the petitioner/complainant filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, who on 7-3-1989 dismissed the revision as not maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this petition for special leave to appeal on 3-4- 1985. 2. While raising preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant have contended that the present application is barred by time. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has tried to explain the delay. 3. I have considered the matter carefully I feel persuaded to dismiss the petition as barred by time for the reasons that the complaint was dismissed on 16-10-1988. Under section 417, Cr.P.C. Only petition for special leave to appeal lies against the order of acquittal passed in a complaint, instead the petitioner filed revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, which was rejected on 7-3-1989 for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner did not care to file this petition immediately. He has filed this petition after about a month of the rejection of his revision. The delay was palpable enough to attract the attention but the petitioner did not care to explain the delay more particularly the delay of one month after the rejection of his revision. He has not filed any application for the condonation of delay. 4. For what has-been said above, the petition is dismissed. S.A./M-383/1