P L D 1992 Lahore 167 (PLP)
DAULAT‑‑Petitioner Versus MOHABBAT and 6 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1992 Lahore 167 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana, J |
| Parties | DAULAT‑‑Petitioner Versus MOHABBAT and 6 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1992 Lahore 167 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1992 Lahore 167 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Majid Tiwana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1992 Lahore 167 (PLP) (DAULAT‑‑Petitioner Versus MOHABBAT and 6 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Enforcement of Shariah Act (X of 1"1)‑‑ ‑S.3 ‑‑‑ Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435 & 439 ‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34 ‑‑‑ Revision by petitioner ‑‑‑ Complainant calling in question the order of acquittal of accused ‑‑‑ Petitioner while confronted with the situation that if he pressed the revision against the acquittal of accused person, the same, if it ultimately succeeded, shall entail not only their retrial but also that of their co‑accused, who stood sentenced to death, he had chosen to withdraw same ‑‑‑ Petitioner, however, requested the High Court that he may be allowed to participate in the arguments to be addressed in the appeal of accused (who was sentenced to death) before Division Bench on behalf of the complaintant‑‑l A request of petitioner appeared to be in consonance with the dictates of Shariah which was supreme law of Pakistan by virtue of S.3, Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991 which not only recognized the right of an individual but also gave it preference over the right or authority of the State and its functionaries ‑‑‑ Petitioner therefore would be well within his rights to oppose the appeal of convict before the Division Bench on behalf of the complainant. (b) Enforcement of Shariah Act (X of 1991)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑ S.3 ‑‑‑ Provision of S. 3 not only recognised the right of an individual but also gives it preference over the right or authority of the State and its functionaries.
Judgment & Decree
The respondents alongwith Nasir co‑accused were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sheikhupura on the charge of committing murder and vide his judgment, dated 12‑2‑1991, where Nasir co‑accused was convicted, under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death besides some fine and imprisonment in lieu thereof, the respondents were acquitted on benefit of doubt.
2. By this criminal revision the petitioner, who is complainant in the case, calls in question the order of their acquittal. The learned counsel for the petitioner while confronted with the situation that if he presses this criminal revision against the acquittal of the respondents, the same, if it ultimately succeeded, shall entail not only their retrial but also that of their co‑accused Nasir, who stands sentenced to death, he has chosen to withdraw it. He, however, requests that he may be allowed to participate in the arguments to be A addressed in the criminal appeal of Nasir before the Division Bench' on behalf of the complainant.
3. This request appears to be in consonance with the dictates of Shariah which is now supreme law of the land by virtue of section 3 of the Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991. It not only recognizes the right of an individual but also gives it preference over the right or authority of the State and its functionaries. He shall, therefore, be well within his rights to oppose the appeal of Nasir convict before the Division Bench on behalf of the complainant.
3. With the above observations the criminal revision is dismissed as withdrawn. Order accordingly M.B.A./D‑2/L