1968 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Fazal-e-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Fazal-e-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdur Rahman Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Khalid, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Mahmood Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Rafiq Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddiq & Co., Attorneys for Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
Abdur Rahman Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Khalid, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. P. S. L. A. No. 53 of 1968 Mahmood Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Rafiq Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddiq & Co., Attorneys for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd May 1968. FAZAL-E-AKBAR, J.--This order will dispose of two petitions for special leave to appeal, e.g. Criminal P. S. L. As. Nos. 44 and 53 of 1968. As they arise out of the same judgment of the High Court, they have been heard together. These three petitioners, namely, Muhammad Nawaz, Chiragh and Bagh stand convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. and sentenced to death for the murder of one, Hussain. They have also been convicted and sentenced under section 325/34, P. P. C. for causing grievous injuries to Nazir son of the deceased. Mr. Mahmood Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended inter alia: (i) that the false implication of the petitioners by the witnesses who are inimical to them, cannot be ruled out in the absence of independent corroboration, implicating each of them with the offence; (ii) that the dying declaration had been brought on the record by the Additional Sessions Judge during the trial without any notice to the accused and that they were not also given any opportunity to explain it in their examination under section 342, Cr. P. C.; and (iii) that the defence plea had not received due and full consideration in the High Court. We think, for the safe administration of justice, the above as well as the other points raised in the petitions, require considera?tion. We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. Leave granted.