1990 PLP 1140 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKBAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1140 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid 1qbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKBAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1140 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1140 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid 1qbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1140 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKBAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Arguments made before Supreme Court had already been raised before High Court‑‑‑No interference was considered necessary in the discretion exercised by High Court whereby bail allowed to accused by Sessions Court had rightly been cancelled‑‑ Leave to appeal was consequently refused. Bashir Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench dated 2nd May, 1989. A case is registered against the petitioner under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 (Enforcement of Zina Hudood Ordinance. The allegation is that the petitioner committed Zina Biljabr with Mst. Nargas complainant. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail to the petitioner because the result from the chemical examiner had not been received. The result was subsequently received and therefore, when application was moved for cancellation of bail in the High Court at the instance of Mst. Nargas complainant the learned Judge of the High Court cancelled the bail. It is submitted before us by learned counsel that there was delay in the lodging of F.I.R., that there were no marks of violence on the person of the complainant, that complainant according to the medical evidence was used to sexual intercourse, that there was only the solitary statement of the complainant herself against the petitioner etc. All these arguments had been raised before the learned Single Judge who rightly arrived at the conclusion that the bail allowed to the petitioner should be cancelled. We are not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in the circumstances of the case. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. . N.H.Q./M‑1339/S Leave Refused.