1988 PLP 161 (SCMR)
ZOHAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 161 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, S.A. Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ZOHAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 161 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 161 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, S.A. Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 161 (SCMR) (ZOHAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th November, 1987.
- Kh. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 9-10-1982 passed in Criminal Revision No. 377 of 1982).
S. 324/34--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Appeal against acquittal-- Appreciation of evidence--Concurrent findings on question of acquittal--Infirmities in judgment borne out from record- Acquittal of accused under 5.324/34, P.P.'C. challenged Concurrent findings of two Courts on question of acquittal of accused were based on appreciation of evidence and no question of law arising Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances. Kh. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby his revision petition against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali was dismissed. 2. The respondent Amir Abdullah was tried by the Assistant Commissioner/ Magistrate 1st Class, Mianwali, alongwith his co-accused Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and Mst. Sarwar Bibi for an offence under section 324/34, P.P.C. for injuring complainant /petitioner Zohar Khan, convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000 or in default three months' R.I. The other two lady accused were acquitted. The respondent thereupon filed a criminal appeal against his conviction whereas a criminal revision was filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent as also for re-trial of the two acquitted accused. The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 9-3-1982, dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner, accepted the appeal of the respondent and acquitted him. The matter was further taken up by the petitioner to the High Court in revision which was dismissed in limine as per impugned order. 3. The learned High Court, on the perusal of the record, found that the infirmities pointed out by the First Appellate Court in its judgment were borne out from the record and the respondent was rightly acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgments passed in the case. There is concurrent finding of the two learned Courts on the question of acquittal of the respondent, which are based on appreciation of evidence and no question of law arises in the matter. The petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. M . I . / Z-17/ S Petition dismissed.