1987 PLP 123 (SCMR)
SHARAF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus The STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 123 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | SHARAF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus The STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 123 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 123 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 123 (SCMR) (SHARAF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus The STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2‑5‑1984, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1982 and Murder Reference No. 62 of 1982). (a) Constitution of Pakistan‑ ‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Fresh plea raised at Supreme Court stage against conviction on ground of in-competency of trial‑‑Accused being a Member of Defence Forces such hyper‑technical plea not taken before Trial Court or High Court‑‑Such plea not permitted to be raised at Supreme Court stage‑ Leave to appeal refused. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). S.549‑‑Petitioner member of Defence Forces‑‑Appeal against conviction‑‑Plea raised that Trial Court was bound to inform Military Authorities about trial of petitioner and omission to do so had vitiated whole trial‑‑Plea being hyper‑technical and not having been raised before Trial Court or High Court, disallowed at Supreme Court stage‑‑Nothing on record available to show that Military Authorities were not informed and otherwise too, petitioner's long absence from duty must have been noticed 'and led to enquiry about him‑‑Plea being without force, petition dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Sharif Khan petitioner was tried along with two others for the murder of Murad. His co‑accused were acquitted by the trial Court but he was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.6,000 (2 years' R.I. in default of payment of fine). His appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the death sentence was confirmed.
2. Feeling aggrieved he has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence.
3. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the petition on merits but has only raised the plea that under the law the trial Court was bound to inform the military authorities that a member of the Defence Forces was being tried of the offence in question. He urged that because of this omission the whole trial stood vitiated and as such the petitioner deserves to be let off.
4. This hyper‑technical plea was never taken up by the petitioner either before the trial Court or the High Court and he cannot, therefore, be permitted to raise this plea at this late stage. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to show that the military authorities were not informed about the trial of a member of the Defence Forces and we assume that his lengthy absence must have been noticed by his regimental officers, in case they had not been informed by the civil authorities of his detention in connection with an offence under section 302, P.P.C. and that they would, then, have certainly made an inquiry as to his whereabouts and thereby got to know that he was being tried for the offence in question. This plea has, therefore, no force. The petition is consequently dismissed. M . I. Petition dismissed.