1995 PLP 1096 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD FAZIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1096 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAZIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1096 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1096 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1096 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD FAZIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th October, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 3‑7‑1994 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 289 of 1990). ‑‑‑‑S. 468‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Courts below had accepted the prosecution evidence against the accused for valid reasons and had already taken a lenient view in the matter of sentence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 19th October, 1994. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Fazil petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 3‑7‑1994 whereby his appeal against his conviction under section 468 of the PY.C., carrying a sentence of 9 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000, recorded by the learned Special Judge on 8‑5‑1990, was dismissed.
2. The prosecution version was that one Muhammad Farooq was detained in the judicial lock‑up Chakwal as an accused in a murder case. On 29‑9‑1983 at 12‑30 in the night when Hazar Muhammad Constable was on duty, co‑accused Abdul Qadeer Head Constable, incharge guard, a friend of the present petitioner, brought out aforesaid Muhammad Farooq from the lock‑up and he absconded. Afterwards, in order to save aforesaid Abdul Qadeer, the petitioner who was then working as an Ahlmad in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Chakwal fabricated a Robkar with forged signature of Resident Magistrate, Chakwal for the release of aforesaid Muhammad Farooq showing that he had been admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. The material evidence against the petitioner consists of the depositions of Mr Muhammad Aslam, Resident Magistrate, Chakwal and Mr., Anwaar‑ul‑Haq Bajwa, Handwriting Expert.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He tried to argue the case firstly on merits but could find no fault with the evidence regarding forgery committed by the petitioner and then prayed for reduction in the sentence.
5. After examining the record we find that the Courts below have accepted the prosecution evidence against the petitioner for valid reasons and have already taken a lenient view in the matter of sentence. In the circumstances there is no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑2196/S Leave refused.