1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ: --The complainant side in a challan case has called in question the remand of the case by the High Court on appeal filed by the accused/convict in the said case.
2. According to learned counsel the respondent Inamullah was challaned in a case registered by the police on the complaint of the petitioner. He was convicted for murder with the sentence of life imprisonment and fine. During the hearing of the appeal the learned Judge in the High Court discovered that the complaint case filed from the accused side which purported to be cross-case had not been tried and concluded in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts from time to time. As a result the respondent's appeal was allowed and the case was remanded for fresh trial in accordance with law.
3. After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the aforenoticed rule of practice had not been satisfied and that in so far as the legality of the order of remand is concerned, it may not be possible to assail the same.
4. He, however, . Vehemently argued that this defect should have been pointed out at the trial stage by the other side. But he failed to advance the point any further when questioned as to why the petitioner side did not perform the same duty to the Court--as all the parties and their counsel were bound to assist the Court in pursuance of the rule of good conduct in the Court; namely, when seeking justice do justice. This saluable rule of practice has also the support of Islamic jurisprudence.
5. In the fight of the foregoing discussion no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Leave, to appeal, therefore, is refused.