1989 P Cr (PLP)
JEHANGIR and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | JEHANGIR and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ 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 Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (JEHANGIR and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz I. Mir for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 21st December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 323, 324 & 34‑‑Term `moral turpitude'‑‑Meaning‑‑Conviction under Ss. 323, 324 & 34, P.P.C. cannot be treated as a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude.‑‑[Words and phrases]. Durga Singh N. The State of Punjab A I R 1957 Pb. 97 ref. Jalal‑ul‑Din Khuld, AA.‑G. Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Jalal‑ul‑Din Khuld, AA.‑G. Punjab for the State. Date of hearing: 21st December, 1988. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. are that Khushamand Din petitioner alongwith others was convicted by Ch. Ghulam Rasul Jaspal, M.I.C., on 6‑6‑1988 and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. plus fine for causing injuries to Yar Muhammad. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali on 14‑9‑1988. A revision was filed by him in this Court which too was dismissed on 25‑9‑1988. Later Criminal Miscellaneous No.1294/M of 1988 was filed for acquittal of the Petitioner on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. During its pendency Khushamand Din petitioner was released in pursuance of the general remission granted by the Government on 6‑12‑1988. He has again come to this Court for declaration that the offence under section 324/323/34, P.P.C. under which he had been convicted did not involve moral turpitude. This according to him is necessary to avoid departmental action against him being a public servants. Moral turpitude' has not been defined anywhere but a reference was made to it in Durga Singh v. The State of Punjab A I R 1957 Pb. 97 in the following words:‑ "The term has generally been taken to mean a conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals and contrary to what a man owes to a fellow‑man or to society in general. It has never been held that gravity of punishment is to be considered in determining whether the, misconduct involves moral turpitude or not."
2. The learned AA.‑G. has not been able to cite any authority contrary to it to show that conviction under section 323/324/34, P.P.C. can be treated as all conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. The request is accordingly granted. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1307/M of 1988. This stands dismissed being not pressed. H.B.T./J‑46/L Petition allowed.