1986 PLP 238 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 238 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nuarat, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 238 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 238 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nuarat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 238 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 25‑3‑1985 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1982). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Contention raised by accused only amounting to a request for reappraisal of evidence to reach a different conclusion on question of fact from conclusion arrived at by Courts below‑‑Case being not appropriate for reappraisal of evidence, leave refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN. ACTG. C.J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 25‑3‑1985, dismissing their appeal in a murder case.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and gone through the impugned judgment. The contentions raised by him only ‑amount to a request for reappraisal of evidence to reach a different conclusion on question of fact, different than those arrived at by the learned Courts below. We do not consider this appropriate case for reappraisal of evidence. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M. Y. H . Petition dismissed.