1985 PLP 1912 (SCMR)
ZIAUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE- Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1912 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ZIAUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE- Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1912 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1912 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1912 (SCMR) (ZIAUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE- Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 1985.
- Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment /order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17-12-1984, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 1984).
Art. 185(3)--Re-appraisal of evidence--Concurrent finding on question of fact by Courts below--Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Ziaul Haq petitioner was convicted under sections 420, 468 and
471. P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. The allegation against him is that he sat in the Matriculation Examination and in the form submitted by him he pasted the photograph of his brother Ehtashamul Haq instead of his own photograph. This fact came to light and Ziaul Haq petitioner was tied for the aforementioned charges. He denied the allegation but the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore, relied upon the prosecution evidence and convicted him for the said offences. He filed an appeal before the High Court which accepted the same to the extent that it set aside the conviction and sentences under section 420, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but maintained his conviction and sentences under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. vide the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The contention raised by him amounts to a request for re‑appraisal of the evidence. Having considered the question we do not find it a fit case for re‑appraisal of evidence on a question of fact on which the Courts below have given a concurrent finding. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no merit. M.I. Petition dismissed.