1969 PLP 26 (SCMR)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent.
| Citation | 1969 PLP 26 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Abdus Sattar, JJ |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent. |
| Primary Law | Appeal to Supreme Court‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 26 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Appeal to Supreme Court‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 26 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Abdus Sattar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 26 (SCMR) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 'D. M. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 8th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 22nd January 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1967/Murder Reference No. 55 of 1967).
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal dismissed‑Petition re‑heard and leave granted on Court's attention being drawn to fact that on a jail petition by one accused leave had been granted to him. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal dismissed‑Petition re‑heard and leave granted on Court's attention being drawn to fact that on a jail petition by one accused leave had been granted to him. 'D. M. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 8th October 1968. sThis petition was dismissed by our order dated 20‑6‑1968. Later it was brought to our notice that on the Jail petition of the co‑accused Muhammad Aslam leave was granted. We therefore decided to re‑hear this matter. Leave to appeal has been granted in the case of the co‑accused to re‑examine the evidence. The evidence against both the accused is common. We therefore vacate our order dated 20-6‑68 and grant leave to the petitioner. Both the appeals shall be heard together. Leave granted,