1989 PLP 1374 (SCMR)
SARDAR KHAN Petitioner Versus Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1374 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SARDAR KHAN Petitioner Versus Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1374 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1374 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1374 (SCMR) (SARDAR KHAN Petitioner Versus Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Abdul Aasim Jaafery, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th April, 1989.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General Punjab with Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18 March, 1987 in P.S.L.A. No.15 of 1987). ‑‑‑S.324/454‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petition against acquittal‑‑High Court had elaborately attended to the arguments raised m the petition‑‑Both the Courts had properly appraised the evidence on record for arriving at the conclusion‑‑No misreading of record was pointed out‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Muhammad Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General Punjab with Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18 March, 1987 whereby petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The background is that the petitioner got a case registered under section 324/452, P.P.C. against the respondents on 15 March 1980, but the police in the course of investigation found the version in the F.I.R. as incorrect and cancelled the case. Thereafter proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. were taken against the petitioner and these resulted in his acquittal in 1983. Then the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents under the aforesaid sections i.e. 324/452, P.P.C. before the Magistrate. The respondents were summoned and after the trial the Magistrate acquitted them vide his order, dated 27 October, 1986. This order was challenged by way of a petition for special leave to appeal in the High Court by the petitioner which as stated above was dismissed. Hence the present petition before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that there has been misreading of the record; that the trial Court wrongly arrived at the conclusion that P.Ws. Nos.5 and 7 were hostile towards the respondents; and finally that after their acquittal the respondents had filed a suit for damages as against him which was still pending. On the basis of this reasoning learned counsel prays that we should order retrial of the respondents under the aforesaid sections almost after nine years from the date of the alleged occurrence. We have gone through the impugned orders as well as statements of the witnesses. The High Court has attended to the arguments being raised before us elaborately in para. 2 of the impugned order. Both the Courts have properly appraised the evidence on record for arriving at the conclusion which is being challenged before us. There appears to be no misreading of record in this case and consequently no case is made out for interference. The petition is therefore dismissed. M.A.K./S‑303/S Petition dismissed