Lahore High Court rules unrelated individuals can’t challenge acquittals
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that a private individual with no connection to a case lacks locus standi — the legal right to bring a challenge — to contest the acquittal of an accused.
Chief Justice Aalia Neelum issued the ruling while deciding an objection raised by the court office in a petition filed by a young lawyer, and upheld the objection regarding the maintainability of the plea.
The petitioner had challenged the acquittal of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his son Hamza Shehbaz in a money laundering case registered by the FIA Anti-Corruption Circle Lahore. The acquittal had been granted by a special court in 2022.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the acquittal was not based on evidence and that the prosecution had failed to challenge the decision for over three years, thereby giving the petitioner the right to file a revision petition.
Court upholds Shehbaz, Hamza acquittal; dismisses lawyer’s petition
However, the chief justice held that the petitioner was neither the complainant nor connected with the registration of the FIR, which had been lodged by the FIA.
She ruled that no legal grievance had accrued to the petitioner and, therefore, he lacked the legal standing to challenge the acquittal.
The CJ further observed that under Section 10 of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, only the federal government, through a public prosecutor, is authorised to file an appeal against an acquittal by a special judge.
Regarding Section 439 of the CrPC, the chief justice noted: “The provision clearly states that if an appeal is available and no appeal is filed, then no revision proceedings should be entertained.”
She added that where a statutory remedy of appeal exists, revision proceedings cannot be entertained.
On merits, CJ Neelum noted that the trial court had found no incriminating evidence against the accused persons and had rightly extended the benefit of the doubt. “An acquittal by the trial court should not be overturned unless it is completely unreasonable, entirely unsupported, or based upon sketchy or artificial reasons,” the chief justice maintained. She observed that the petitioner’s counsel could not point out any illegality in the judgement under challenge.
CJ Neelum ruled that the court could not rely on its decision in Abdul Rashid versus Arshad Ali and two others (2000 YLR 2619), cited by the petitioner.
She observed that the judgement relied upon by the petitioner did not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the chief justice sustained the office objection and dismissed the petition, also declaring other objections infructuous. The petition was dismissed through a short order on March 24.
Published in Dawn, April 9th, 2026
