2020 SCMR 497
Art. 188---Second review petition before the Supreme Court --- Not maintainable.
2018 SCMR 1218
2018 PLC(CS) 1144
Art. 188---Review before the Supreme Court---'Second review '---Second review was barred by law and no party could approach the Supreme Court for a Second review .
PLD 2015 SUPREME-COURT 50
Art. 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI, R. 9---Second review petition filed before the Supreme Court---Maintainability--- O.XXVI, R.9 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 barred a Second review petition---Supreme Court had already recorded findings against the convict by dismissing his appeal and (first) review petition--- Convict through a Second review petition could not re-agitate the matter---Second review petition was dismissed accordingly.
2010 SCMR 312
Art.188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI---Review of Supreme Court judgment---Second review petition-Maintainability-Contention of the applicant was that since he had not filed previously any review petition, the one filed by him now, could not be treated a Second review petition---Validity---Previous review petition having been dismissed by 14 Members Bench, short order/judgment sought to be reviewed had attained finality, therefore no Second review petition was permissible.
2001 SCMR 1135
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 ----Arts. 184 & 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 120-B---Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), S.3---Review before Supreme Court--=Second review petition--Repetitious review petitions---Legality---Review petitions under Islamic administration of justice---Limits on number of reviews---Applicability of Islamic precepts of administration of justice in present times---Principles of Islamic administration of justice were referred on behalf of the accused in support of the contention that under the Islamic dispensation of justice any number of review petitions were maintainable provided they satisfied two conditions: (i) on reconsideration of a given case the Court could infer that certain injustice was apparent on the face of the record and (ii) that the social conditions of the society must be such as existed during the days when the above-referred direction was made---Applicability---Existing conditions were that serious vicious moral crises prevailed in the society and in this view of the matter if the last-mentioned condition was conceded, havoc would be played with the judicial system which was already tottering on the brink of demolition---Unless the present society came to the moral standards of those days, the aforementioned exposition of Islamic Injunctions would not hold water---Impugned orders were not shown to have been based on erroneous assumption of material facts or to have been recorded without adverting to a provision of law---No departure in passing the, said orders was even pointed out to have been made from established norms of law and precepts provided in Constitution and no error could be shown apparent on the face of the record---Contentions raised on behalf of accused essentially related to the reappraisal of evidence which could not generally furnish a ground for review and certainly not for the Second review petition even in the garb of a Constitutional petition---All the evidence had collectively pointed to the guilt of the accused and such conclusion was not materially affected by the alleged discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses---Constitutional petition/Second review petition was dismissed by Supreme Court in circumstances.
0 Comments