2010 SCMR 964 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 SCMR 964 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 SCMR 964 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 SCMR 964 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 SCMR 964 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kamran Murtaza, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant/respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 27-12-2006 passed by this Court in Crl. Ps. Nos.42 and 43-Q of 2006 and on appeal from the judgment dated 16-10-2006 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in ATA Cr.As.Nos.277 and 278 of 2005).
Art.188
All the arguments made in the review petitions had already been comprehensively considered and decided in the impugned judgment passed by Supreme Court
Counsel for the petitioner in fact wanted re-examination and re-evaluation of the entire evidence once again, which could not be done while dilating upon the review petition
Review could not be granted on the ground that certain facts required reappraisement
Rearguing a case on merits as well as additional grounds, was beyond the scope of review petition
Review petitions were devoid of merits and the same were dismissed accordingly. Basharat Khan v. The State 1984 SCMR 1033; Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State PLD 1979 SC 741; Muhammad Nazir v. State 1979 SCMR 89; Kala Khan v. Misri Khan 1979 SCMR 347; Saghir Ali v. Mehr Din 1968 SCMR 729; Manzoor Hussain v. Zohra Bibi PLD 1990 SC 924; Haji Muhammad Sarwar v. Mian Asad Hakim and others 1983 SCMR 177 and Jalal v. Nazir Ahmad 1980 SCMR 320 ref.
Art.188
Review of Supreme Court judgments
Scope
Review cannot be granted on the ground that certain facts required re appraisement or for re-examination of the same arguments
Rearguing a case on merits as well as additional grounds was beyond the scope of review by Supreme Court. Basharat Khan v. The State 1984 SCMR 1033; Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State PLD 1979 SC 741; Muhammad Nazir v. State 1979 SCMR 89; Kala Khan v. Misri Khan 1979 SCMR 347; Saghir Ali v. Mehr Din 1968 SCMR 729; Manzoor Hussain v. Zohra Bibi PLD 1990 SC 924; Haji Muhammad Sarwar v. Mian Asad Hakim and others 1983 SCMR 177 and Jalal v. Nazir Ahmad 1980 SCMR 320 ref. Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant/respondent.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
Heard Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC at length on behalf of petitioner and Syed Ayaz Zahoor, learned Sr. ASC for complainant in the above captioned review petitions which are being disposed of by this order being identical in nature.
2. All the arguments made today have been considered and decided in a comprehensive manner in the judgment impugned. In fact Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned ASC wanted re-examination and re-evaluation of the entire evidence once again which we are afraid cannot be done while dilating upon these review petition. It is well settled by now that review cannot be granted on the ground that certain facts require re appraisement by Supreme Court. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Basharat Khan v. The State (1984 SCMR 1033) (1), Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State (PLD 1979 SC 741), Muhammad Nazir v. State (1979 SCMR 89), Kala Khan v. Misri Khan (1979 SCMR 347), Saghir Ali v. Mehr Din (1968 SCMR 729). There is no cavil to the proposition that review cannot be granted for merely re-examination of the same arguments. Re-arguing a case on merits as well as additional grounds is beyond the scope of review petition. In this regard reference can be made to Manzoor Hussain v. Zohra Bibi (PLD 1990 SC 924), Haji Muhammad Sarwar v. Mian Asad Hakim and others (1983 SCMR 177), Jalal v. Nazir Ahmad (1980 SCMR 320). The above captioned c review petitions being devoid of merits are accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./M-23/SC Petitions dismissed.