1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.--- In this petition for leave to appeal by an acquitted accused who has faa;led in his subsequent case for malicious prosecution against the respondents' side, it is admitted by his learned counsel that the acquittal was by extension of benefit of doubt. The basic judgment on the scope of acquittal or otherwise of extension of benefit of doubt, is Sher Hassan v. The State PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 480. The same has been relied upon and the same view recorded in different situations, in some s recent judgments of this Court as well. They are Sadafuzzaman v. The State (1990 SCM R 1277), Feroze Khan v. Fateh Khan (1991 SCM R 2220) and Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore v. Slamat Ali Khan PLD 1991 SC 699.
2. In this case in addition to the reasons which prevailed with the High Court and are mentioned in the impugned judgment including ofte that the prosecution witnesses had no malice against the petitioner; it has to be held that under the principles discussed in the aforenoticed judgments they--the prosecution witnesses, could not be held to have perjured themselves simply because the petitioner has been extended benefit of doubt..
3. That being so, no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The same, accordingly, is refused.
4. M.B.A./M-1603/S