1985 PLP (1) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP (1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Appellate Shariat Bench |
| Bench Members | Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, Justices Shafiur Rahman and Pir Muhammad Karam Shah, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Appellate Shariat Bench bench comprising: Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, Justices Shafiur Rahman and Pir Muhammad Karam Shah, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP (1) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemat Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (absent).
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 1984.
- Nemat Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (absent).
Headnotes / Summary
(From judgment, dated 23-5-1984 of the Federal Shariat Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 102/L and 109-L of 1983 in both petitions).
Art.203-F--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.4--Leave to appeal granted to examine evidence in order to see whether principles for administration of criminal justice have been followed in resolving contradictions between different statements made under oath by abductee. Nemo for the State (in both Cr. Ps.) .
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH (Chairman).‑‑ After hearing the learned counsel and going through the deposition of Mst. Zubaida the abductee, we consider it a fit case to examine evidence, in order to see whether principles for administration of Criminal justice have been followed in resolving the contradictions between different statements made under oath by her. M. I. Order accordingly.