Disciplinary proceedings---acquittal in criminal case---Effect---Such acquittal would not be an embargo against disciplinary proceedings.
Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee after his acquittal in criminal case---Validity--Criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings were not synonymous or interchangeable for having distinct features and characteristics--- Provisions of Art. 13 of the Constitution and maxim "nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa" (no person should be twice disturbed for the same cause) would not apply to such case
Scope of interference in appeal againstacquittal is most narrow and limited---Principles and guidelines to be adhered to by the courts in appeal against acquittal stated.
Compulsory retirement---Absence from duty--acquittal from criminal charge---Civil servant was removed from service on the allegation of his wilful absence from duty---Plea raised by civil servant was that his absence from duty was due to circumstances beyond his control as he had been involved in murder case---Validity---Service Tribunal while dealing with appeal, had power under S.5 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to vary and modify order of departmental authority---Supreme Court while sitting in appeal over judgment of Service Tribunal could also exercise such power to meet the ends of justice---Civil servant, who had long unblemished service record of about 17 years and he, by force of circumstances (involvement in case in which he was later on acquitted), was prevented from performing his duty---Civil servant was absent from duty entailing some penalty under law and his removal from service was too harsh penalty for him---Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and converted penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement-
Ss. 265-K & 561-A--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203F(2B)---Appeal against acquittal of accused under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. by Federal Shariat Court---Evidence, both oral and documentary, was available on record with respect to the allegation of removal of kidney of the complainant after her abduction---Prima facie case, thus, was made out against the accused and in the presence of such evidence powers to prevent abuse of law might not be exercised as to throttle the process of justice---Mere availability of defence to a party would not call for exercise of such powers, that call for exercise of judicial discretion---Prosecution evidence was not to be sifted at the outset---Powers under S. 265-K, Cr. P. C. were similar and could be equated to the proceedings under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.---Petition for leave to appeal was consequently converted into appeal and allowed---acquittal order of Federal Shariat Court was set aside and the order of Trial Court was restored in circumstances.
Appeal against acquittal ---Principles---Considerations for deciding the appeal against acquittal and conviction are different---Judgment of acquittal cannot be upset if a different opinion can be formed on appreciation of evidence on record.
---S.4---Interpretation of S.4 of Limitation act , 1908---Section 4 revolves around two maxims i.e. "Lex non cogit ad impossibila" (law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform and "act uscuriae neminem gravabit " (an act of Court shall prejudice no man)---Period of limitation is not amended/modified/altered or changed by such provisions---Section 4 has no concern whatsoever with computing prescribed period, but where such period expires on a day, when Court was closed, then plaints/petitions/applications may be preferred on the day, when Court re-opens.
Act of Court ---- act us curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man)---Filing appeal before wrong forum by mistake in decree sheet--Effect---Where it was act of the Court demonstrated in the decree sheet which prompted the respondents to file the appeal before the District Judge, it would really be a harsh view to non-suit the respondents for approaching the wrong appellate forum---Party should not be made to suffer on account of act /omission on the part of the Court or other State functionaries.
S. 21--Pre-emption suit---Omission by Government functionaries---Non impleading of all the vendors---One of the vendors was omitted by the plaintiff in his plaint and the omission was due to absence of the name of that vendor in the certified copy of sale-deed which was issued by the office of the Registrar---Effect---Plaintiff could not be penalized for not impleading that vendor in the array of defendants in the suit as the omission had been made in the number of vendees during the course of recording entries by the office of the Registrar---Act of Court would prejudice no man---All the public functionaries were enjoined by law to perform their duties in honest manner---Where some omission or irregularity was committed, the ordinary man should not be made to suffer for the same provided he had no hand therein---High Court had rightly restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in circumstances.
Act us curiae neminem gravabit ---that act of court should prejudice no man, comes into play with a view to obviate hardships which may otherwise be the result of errors of court itself---Where non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law occurs by complying with the direction of the court which is not in conformity with law, the party complying therewith is not to be penalized.
HIGH COURT RULINGS
|2012 MLD 188||2011 PTD 1076||2007 CLD 726|
|2005 PLD 214||2002 YLR 3755||1997 PLD Lah 1|
|1995 CLC 957||1994 CLC 1018||1992 PLD Lah 60|
|PLJ 1983 Cr. C. 199||PLD 1958 Lah 959|