LHC rules delay in appeals not justified by filing in wrong forum
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that delays in appeals against convictions can only be excused when a sufficient and reasonable cause is demonstrated. Relying on the incorrect forum does not meet the legal requirements for delay condonation.
The ruling came during the hearing of a case where a convict had filed an appeal against his conviction in the district court, ignoring the requirement that such appeals, under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 (amended in 2015), should be filed directly with the LHC.
The key legal question before the court was whether the appellant's decision to file his appeal in the wrong forum, which led to its dismissal, could justify the filing of a fresh appeal at the LHC beyond the statutory limitation period.
The convict, Zainul Abideen, was sentenced on May 15, 2017, by a magistrate in Lahore. However, instead of approaching the LHC, as mandated by Section 45-A of the Act of 2011, he filed an appeal in the Sessions Court on May 22, 2017. This forum lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the said Act.
The appeal remained pending in the Sessions Court for around seven months and was ultimately dismissed on December 21, 2017, for lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant then filed a fresh appeal at the LHC on January 19, 2018, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking to condone the delay in filing his appeal.
Justice Abher Gul Khan, who was hearing the case, noted that the appellant had failed to challenge or seek to set aside the judgment passed by the additional sessions judge, which dismissed his earlier appeal. This lack of challenge left the earlier dismissal order intact, which could have implications for the present appeal's maintainability.
The judge further observed that during the seven-month period when the appeal was pending in the sessions court, neither the appellant nor his legal counsel addressed the critical legal issue of the forum's lack of jurisdiction. Instead, they passively awaited a favourable outcome. It was only after the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that they chose to file the current appeal before the LHC.
Justice Khan emphasised that while the court often exercises discretion in condoning delays, it is not automatic. The court would not routinely condone delays unless the appellant could provide valid and convincing reasons. The judge highlighted that such condonation cannot be treated as a mechanical rule to apply in every case.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Punjab Food Authority, alleging offenses under Sections 22-A and 24-A of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011.
The judicial magistrate took cognisance of the case and summoned the appellant. After trial, the magistrate found Zain guilty of an offence under Section 24-A of the Act, sentencing him to one month's imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs100,000.
Since the sentence was less than one year, the magistrate exercised discretion under Section 382-A of the CrPC and postponed the execution of the sentence to allow the appellant the opportunity to file an appeal, contingent upon him furnishing bail bonds of Rs200,000.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
20 hours ago
- Express Tribune
LHC rules delay in appeals not justified by filing in wrong forum
Listen to article The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that delays in appeals against convictions can only be excused when a sufficient and reasonable cause is demonstrated. Relying on the incorrect forum does not meet the legal requirements for delay condonation. The ruling came during the hearing of a case where a convict had filed an appeal against his conviction in the district court, ignoring the requirement that such appeals, under the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 (amended in 2015), should be filed directly with the LHC. The key legal question before the court was whether the appellant's decision to file his appeal in the wrong forum, which led to its dismissal, could justify the filing of a fresh appeal at the LHC beyond the statutory limitation period. The convict, Zainul Abideen, was sentenced on May 15, 2017, by a magistrate in Lahore. However, instead of approaching the LHC, as mandated by Section 45-A of the Act of 2011, he filed an appeal in the Sessions Court on May 22, 2017. This forum lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the said Act. The appeal remained pending in the Sessions Court for around seven months and was ultimately dismissed on December 21, 2017, for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant then filed a fresh appeal at the LHC on January 19, 2018, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking to condone the delay in filing his appeal. Justice Abher Gul Khan, who was hearing the case, noted that the appellant had failed to challenge or seek to set aside the judgment passed by the additional sessions judge, which dismissed his earlier appeal. This lack of challenge left the earlier dismissal order intact, which could have implications for the present appeal's maintainability. The judge further observed that during the seven-month period when the appeal was pending in the sessions court, neither the appellant nor his legal counsel addressed the critical legal issue of the forum's lack of jurisdiction. Instead, they passively awaited a favourable outcome. It was only after the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that they chose to file the current appeal before the LHC. Justice Khan emphasised that while the court often exercises discretion in condoning delays, it is not automatic. The court would not routinely condone delays unless the appellant could provide valid and convincing reasons. The judge highlighted that such condonation cannot be treated as a mechanical rule to apply in every case. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Punjab Food Authority, alleging offenses under Sections 22-A and 24-A of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. The judicial magistrate took cognisance of the case and summoned the appellant. After trial, the magistrate found Zain guilty of an offence under Section 24-A of the Act, sentencing him to one month's imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs100,000. Since the sentence was less than one year, the magistrate exercised discretion under Section 382-A of the CrPC and postponed the execution of the sentence to allow the appellant the opportunity to file an appeal, contingent upon him furnishing bail bonds of Rs200,000.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Penalty of dismissal from service can't be awarded sans probe: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry, or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant as it amounts to violation of principles of Natural Justice. It also said that in cases involving public funds extra caution and due care is required to be observed to prove the charge of embezzlement or misappropriation, whereas, proper inquiry needs to be conducted in a fair and transparent manner to ensure that the public funds, so misappropriated, could be retrieved and the civil servant involved in such offence, shall be punished accordingly. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Mussarat Hilali, observed that while hearing an appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. Brief facts of the case are that District Coordination Officer/ District Collector Mianwali proceeded against the petitioner (Malik Muhammad Ramzan) and awarded punishment of dismissal from service by invoking the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charges of fraud and embezzlement of funds committed by the petitioner by increasing the amounts of cheques through forgery after getting them signed from the authorities. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, filed departmental appeal before departmental authorities, which was rejected on 11.11.2016. The petitioner then filed revision petition, which was also dismissed on 02.03.2018. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. However, such appeal was also dismissed on 24.01.2022. Thus, this petition was filed before the apex court. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that he was not provided with an opportunity of being heard. 'I was never served with any show-cause notice nor any regular inquiry was conducted while imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service,' he asserted. Conversely, the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, submitted that the petitioner was duly served with Show-Cause Notice(s) and was given an opportunity of being heard. The court after perusal of facts and examination of record, found that respondents failed to place on record any material or evidence to show that petitioner was ever served with the Show-Cause Notice(s) or was associated by the IO for the purposes of conducting regular inquiry. It further noted that major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on the allegations of embezzlement/ misappropriation of funds; however, without confronting the petitioner with any material or evidence, which may support such allegations. It set aside the Tribunal's verdict, and the respondents were directed to re-instate the petitioner into service. However, it remanded the matter to the departmental authority to conduct de novo inquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner while providing him sufficient opportunity of being heard in terms of Sections 9 and 10 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
The regulatory force — a bureaucratic mirage
Listen to article The Government of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa has recently unveiled a proposal to establish a new "Regulatory Force", a move that at first glance appears bold and assertive. It arrives wrapped in the language of reform, with promises to crack down on regulatory violations and enforce long-ignored laws. However, beneath the surface, this initiative is far less about reform and far more about repeating the past, clothed in new terminology. In truth, the proposed force is not a leap forward but a familiar sidestep, born from the state's chronic unwillingness to fix what already exists. According to the draft bill, the Regulatory Force will investigate and prosecute regulatory offences, headed by a Director General and Chief Regulatory Officer, both appointed by the Chief Minister. At the district level, authority will rest with Deputy Commissioners, career bureaucrats who, under the proposed framework, will act as ex officio heads. This might sound efficient on paper, but it betrays a deeper discomfort with empowering existing institutions and instead reveals a tendency to retreat to centralised, bureaucratic solutions that Pakistan has long outgrown. What the bill quietly ignores is that the legal machinery to address these offences already exists and has for years. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Act of 2017 explicitly empowers the police to investigate all offences under provincial and federal law. Section 13 of the Act even allows the formation of specialised units for complex and technical crimes, including those involving white-collar or regulatory violations. Additionally, the colonial-era Police Rules of 1934 require officers to be conversant with a range of regulatory frameworks from excise and narcotics to food safety and environmental codes. The existing law is not silent; it is simply not being used. Rather than reinforcing existing structures and addressing why enforcement has faltered, the government appears to have chosen a path of duplication, one that history has shown leads only to greater institutional confusion. At the heart of this proposal is the decision to vest enforcement powers in Deputy Commissioners, a throwback to colonial-era governance where the DC was a singular authority, judge, and administrator rolled into one. It is a model the world moved away from decades ago, and with good reason. In the modern age, criminal investigation is a specialised domain requiring technical training, legal precision, and an understanding of forensic and procedural norms. These are not the natural skillsets of generalist civil servants. Resurrecting the DC's role in law enforcement not only undermines the professionalisation of policing but chips away at the principle of separation of powers that modern democracies rely upon. We've tried this before. Pakistan's institutional landscape is dotted with the debris of similar efforts, maybe well-meaning but misguided. Special anti-narcotics units under excise departments? Ineffective. Task forces to curb electricity theft? Promising on paper, but ultimately toothless. These failures didn't occur because the legal powers were lacking, but because the underlying problems of weak coordination, absence of political will, and institutional turf wars were never addressed. New bodies didn't solve the problem; they merely added another layer of confusion. This then bring us to the more sobering reality — the cost. Establishing an entirely new force is not just a policy shift but also a financial commitment. Recruitment, training, salaries, pensions, vehicles, equipment, office infrastructure, all carry a substantial and recurring fiscal burden. This, in a province already grappling with financial constraints, where police stations lack vehicles, health departments operate on shoestring budgets, and education sectors are chronically underfunded and faltering. In such a context, proposing the creation of an entirely new enforcement body seems not only imprudent but profoundly detached from fiscal reality. The deeper flaw lies in its misdiagnosis, that is, targeting symptoms rather than the systemic dysfunction and rot at the core. Take, for instance, the persistent issue of encroachments on canal land under the Canal and Drainage Act. The law itself is unambiguous. The departments responsible, irrigation and revenue, have clear mandates. And yet, illegal constructions flourish. Why? Not due to legislative gaps, but because of local-level collusion, indifference, and a near-total absence of accountability. The real governance deficit lies in enforcement and institutional rot, not in statutory silence. Creating a new force won't cleanse this decay; it will merely allow it to fester under a new name. There is, of course, a better path forward, one grounded in realism rather than spectacle. Instead of chasing headlines with new agencies, the government should be investing in the tools, training, and autonomy that allow existing units to do their job. Enforcement must be backed by coordination between departments, overseen by the Chief Secretary's office, with field-level collaboration between regulatory and law enforcement units. Most crucially, public servants must be evaluated not by how many departments they create, but by the outcomes they deliver. Performance reviews, audits, accountability are the less glamorous but far more effective tools of reform. True reform is not measured by the number of new institutions we create, but by the strength and integrity of the ones we already have. The proposed Regulatory Force, for all its fanfare, is a costly distraction. It is a legislative sleight of hand that draws attention away from uncomfortable institutional failures. If the Government of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa genuinely seeks better governance, it must look inward. It must ask why the police or for that matter the already existing departments aren't enforcing laws, why existing agencies don't coordinate, and why administrative accountability remains elusive. Until these questions are answered, any new force, no matter how well-intentioned, will only add to the noise, not the solution.
