1989 P Cr (PLP)
SHAH JAHAN ALAMGIR SHAHANSHAH, ADVOCATE‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, C J |
| Parties | SHAH JAHAN ALAMGIR SHAHANSHAH, ADVOCATE‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (SHAH JAHAN ALAMGIR SHAHANSHAH, ADVOCATE‑‑Petitioner Versus Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 561‑A & 435‑‑Inherent powers of High Court, exercise of‑‑Provisions of S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service to agitate against concurrent findings of two competent Courts below arrived at after appraisal of evidence.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 195 of 1988, decided on 18th September, 1988. ‑‑‑Ss. 561‑A & 435‑‑Inherent powers of High Court, exercise of‑‑Provisions of S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service to agitate against concurrent findings of two competent Courts below arrived at after appraisal of evidence. This is an application under sections 435 and 561‑A, Cr.P.C. directed against an order, dated 16‑8‑1987 passed by the learned S.D.M., Landhi/Korangi, Karachi and order dated 30‑5‑1988 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East), in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 1987.
2. Apart from the fact that no second revision is competent, the factual aspect in the case is that both the Courts below after appraisal of the evidence concluded that the applicant/complainant failed to make out a case.
3. The applicant present is in person, who in support of the above application has vehemently urged that even if second revision is not competent, this Court under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. has inherent power to entertain the above application and to rectify the error committed by the two Courts below. In my view, the case had involved appraisal of the evidence and both the Courts below are competent to take view which found favour with them, which cannot be reagitated m the instant case and the provision of section 561 A, Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service. The application is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./S‑302/K Application dismissed.