1990 PLP 282 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 282 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 282 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 282 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 282 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ali Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sheikh Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑.on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l to 3.
- Date of hearing: 20th June, 1989.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Attorney‑General and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11‑3‑1986 in Criminal Appeal No.678 of 1981 and M. R. No.8 of 1982). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petition against acquittal‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine ocular evidence with special reference to the testimony of defence witness who had fully implicated the accused. ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petition against acquittal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted against acquittal of accused and non- bailable warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued against him‑‑‑Verbal request of bail by counsel for accused was declined with observation that accused might make a proper bail petition at appropriate time after arrest if he so wished. Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Attorney‑General and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sheikh Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑.on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l to
3. Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Attorney‑General and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Date of hearing: 20th June, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑The three respondents in this petition were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, for the murder of Mehr Din and for causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses. The trial Judge, by judgment dated 23‑11‑1981, convicted Mukhtar respondent under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to death with‑fine of Rs.5,000 or in default two years R.I. Two third of the fine was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Tufail and Mushtaq respondents were acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt. Mukhtar filed appeal against his conviction and sentence. Reference was also made to the High Court for confirmation of his death sentence. Complainant Mohammad Ali filed revision against the acquittal of Tufail and Mushtaq. All these matters were decided by the High Court by judgment dated 11‑3‑1986 whereby the Criminal Revision filed by the complainant was dismissed in limine; appeal of Mukhtar was accepted, his conviction and sentence was set aside and he was acquitted. Muhammad Ali has now filed this petition for leave to appeal against all the accused those who had been acquitted by the trial Court as well as by the High Court. . We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who submitted that the High Court did not at all refer to the evidence of Mst. Hanifan Bibi wife of Muhammad Ali complainant who appeared in defence and fully implicated the accused. It was submitted that even the ocular account proved the case of the prosecution beyond doubt. We think that there is good deal of force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Leave is granted accordingly to examine the ocular evidence with special reference to the testimony of Mst. Hanifan Bibi because we find that the learned High Court by means of the impugned judgment ignored the defence version observing: "In defence the accused produced D.W.1 Peer Muhammad, D.W. 2 Saeed Ahmad, Registrar, District Registration Office, Gujranwala, D.W.3 Mst. Hanifan Bibi and D.W.4 Muhammad Dawood, Sub Inspector, Finger Print Bureau, Lahore. The testimonies of these D.Ws have nothing to do with the circumstances of the under consideration case We accordingly grant leave to appeal. Non‑bailable warrants of arrest to issue against the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents made a verbal request for bail. This we are not inclined to consider. He may, if he so wishes, make a proper bail petition at the appropriate time after arrest. MA.K./M‑1059/S Leave granted.