1988 PLP 1096 (SCMR)
THE STATE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1096 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S.302/307/452/34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑State petition against acquittal‑‑Compromise between accused and complainant party‑‑Effect of‑‑Counsel for complainant stating before High Court that he had no instruction to argue for maintenance of conviction because complainant party had compromised with respondents‑ ‑Factum of genuine compromise having been affirmed, High Court decided appeal of respondents on merits and acquitted them‑‑In view of compromise between the parties, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal‑‑Petition dismissed. ‑‑Compromise. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | THE STATE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1096 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1096 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S.302/307/452/34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑State petition against acquittal‑‑Compromise between accused and complainant party‑‑Effect of‑‑Counsel for complainant stating before High Court that he had no instruction to argue for maintenance of conviction because complainant party had compromised with respondents‑ ‑Factum of genuine compromise having been affirmed, High Court decided appeal of respondents on merits and acquitted them‑‑In view of compromise between the parties, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal‑‑Petition dismissed. ‑‑Compromise. 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: 1988 PLP 1096 (SCMR) (THE STATE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Rafique Butt, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1988.
- JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 8th April 1986 whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under section 302/307/452/34, P.P.C. At page 26 of the paper‑book and paras 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment it is stated that the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he had instructions to submit that the complainant party had compromised with the respondents. He produced affidavits of the three eye‑witnesses to that effect and further stated that he had no instructions to argue for the maintenance of the conviction and sentence of the respondents. The eye‑witnesses were present in the appellate Court. They were identified by Sardar Mohammad Akram, Advocate (their counsel) and they re‑affirmed their depositions in their affidavits. Thus the finding of the appellate Court is that the factum of compromise which had been effected between the parties stood admitted and was genuine due to the affirmation of the same by the son of the deceased and the other two eye‑witnesses. It was in this background that the appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal of the respondents on merits and acquitted them of the charge as stated above. Since the parties had compromised in this case, in our considered view no case is made out for interference. The petition therefore dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 8 April, 1986 in Criminal Appeal No.888 of 1979). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.302/307/452/34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑State petition against acquittal‑‑Compromise between accused and complainant party‑‑Effect of‑‑Counsel for complainant stating before High Court that he had no instruction to argue for maintenance of conviction because complainant party had compromised with respondents‑ ‑Factum of genuine compromise having been affirmed, High Court decided appeal of respondents on merits and acquitted them‑‑In view of compromise between the parties, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal‑‑Petition dismissed. ‑‑[Compromise].
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 8th April 1986 whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under section 302/307/452/34, P.P.C. At page 26 of the paper‑book and paras 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment it is stated that the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he had instructions to submit that the complainant party had compromised with the respondents. He produced affidavits of the three eye‑witnesses to that effect and further stated that he had no instructions to argue for the maintenance of the conviction and sentence of the respondents. The eye‑witnesses were present in the appellate Court. They were identified by Sardar Mohammad Akram, Advocate (their counsel) and they re‑affirmed their depositions in their affidavits. Thus the finding of the appellate Court is that the factum of compromise which had been effected between the parties stood admitted and was genuine due to the affirmation of the same by the son of the deceased and the other two eye‑witnesses. It was in this background that the appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal of the respondents on merits and acquitted them of the charge as stated above. Since the parties had compromised in this case, in our considered view no case is made out for interference. The petition therefore dismissed. M.I. /S‑133/S Petition dismissed.