1987 PLP 1498 (SCMR)
DILBER HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD ALI and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1498 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | DILBER HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD ALI and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1498 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1498 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1498 (SCMR) (DILBER HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus AHMAD ALI and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents (in Crl. P.S.L.A. No. 156 of 1985).
- Nemo for Petitioner and Respondents (in Jail Petition No. 31‑R of 1985).
- Date of hearing: 17th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. dated 11‑2‑1985 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 59/82 and Murder Reference No. 13 of 1982). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Leave to appeal against acquittal of one of accused and for enhancement of sentences of other four accused‑‑No flaw in impugned judgment pointed out‑‑Case being not a fit one for interference, leave was refused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑High Court found to have already dealt with all the aspects of the case and matter not needing any further consideration‑‑Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This order will dispose of (i) Crl. P.S.L.A. No. 156/85 filed by Dilber Hussain complainant against the acquittal of the respondent No.2, and for the enhancement of sentences of respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 5; and (ii) Jail Petition No.31‑R of 1985, filed by Ahmad Ali petitioner through Jail, against his conviction and sentence; as both the petitions are directed against the same judgment of the High Court dated 11‑2‑1985.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (in Cr. P.S.L.A. No. 156 of 1985). He has not been able to point out any flaw in the impugned judgment. All that he wants is reappraisal of evidence. We are in respectful agreement with the High Court and do not, therefore: consider it a fit case for grant of leave.
3. We have also considered the impugned judgment in the light of the grounds submitted by Ahmad Ali accused‑petitioner in his Jail Petition (No.31‑R/85). We are of the view that the High Court has already dealt with all aspects of the case and the matter does not need any further consideration. Leave is therefore refused‑ in both the petitions. S.Q./D‑3/S Leave refused.