1968 PLP 1429 (SCMR)
MUZAFFAR HOSAIN AND 11 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 PLP 1429 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUZAFFAR HOSAIN AND 11 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1429 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1429 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 PLP 1429 (SCMR) (MUZAFFAR HOSAIN AND 11 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pramode Ch. Bose, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Behter Ali, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 22nd August 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 7th June 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 1968).
Ss. 435 & 439‑High Court in revisional jurisdiction, competent to go into facts as well High Court assessing evidence itself instead of sending case back to lower Court ‑ Course adopted by High Court, held, wise. Nemo for the State. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The 12 petitioners in this case were convicted with one other person under sections 447 and 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code and their convictions were upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge but in revision the High Court of East Pakistan acquitted one of the charge under sections 147 and 11 of the charge under section 447, P. P. C. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal to this Court and the main point urged on their behalf is that the High Court had undertaken the task of a final Court of facts by itself assessing the evidence although this should have been done by the Sessions Court at the appellate stage. This has, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners deprived them of their valuable right of having the evidence analysed by the t‑final Court of facts. We see no substance in this contention. The High Court; can, n its revisional jurisdiction, go into questions of fact as well. If it has done what the Sessions Court should have done that cannot be a ground of complaint. The High Court, in ours opinion, acted wisely in itself assessing the evidence instead of sending it back to the Court of appeal for re‑hearing the case and writing a proper judgment. The course adopted by the High Court has actually resulted in advantage to the petitioners. They cannot now make a grievance of it. No other question arises for consideration in this case, for, it is not the contention of the petitioner that the High Court has not assessed the evidence on correct principles. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The 12 petitioners in this case were convicted with one other person under sections 447 and 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code and their convictions were upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge but in revision the High Court of East Pakistan acquitted one of the charge under sections 147 and 11 of the charge under section 447, P. P. C. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal to this Court and the main point urged on their behalf is that the High Court had undertaken the task of a final Court of facts by itself assessing the evidence although this should have been done by the Sessions Court at the appellate stage. This has, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners deprived them of their valuable right of having the evidence analysed by the t‑final Court of facts. We see no substance in this contention. The High Court; can, n its revisional jurisdiction, go into questions of fact as well. If it has done what the Sessions Court should have done that cannot be a ground of complaint. The High Court, in ours opinion, acted wisely in itself assessing the evidence instead of sending it back to the Court of appeal for re‑hearing the case and writing a proper judgment. The course adopted by the High Court has actually resulted in advantage to the petitioners. They cannot now make a grievance of it. No other question arises for consideration in this case, for, it is not the contention of the petitioner that the High Court has not assessed the evidence on correct principles. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.