2010 PLP 937 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD GHAUS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 937 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Hamid Farooq and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD GHAUS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 937 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 937 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Hamid Farooq and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 937 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD GHAUS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Rab Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court for the Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order, dated 10-2-2009, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12100/B of 2008).
S.302
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
High Court had already issued direction to the Trial Court to conclude the trial of the case within a period of three months
Trial Court, however, was to proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously which would meet the ends of justice
Petition for leave to appeal, having no force was dismissed, in circumstances. Malik Rab Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court for the Petitioner. Alamgir, A.P.G. and Zulfiqar Ali, S.-I., Police Station Chiniot for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY, J.
This petition, under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed against the order, dated 10-2-2009, whereby petitioner's petition was disposed of with the direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months.
2. Malik Rab Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that F.I.R. was lodged on 24-3-2008, after seven days of the occurrence, which took place on 17-3-2008 which casts serious doubts on the genuineness of the facts of the case; that the offence under section 320, P.P.C. attracted which is bailable; that it is negligence on the part of the motorcycle riders, who were three in numbers, were riding motor cycle without having driving licence, that the order passed by learned High Court is not supported with reasons as also suffers from non appreciating the material in its true perspectives. Hence, leave to appeal may be allowed.
3. Mr. Alamgir, learned A.P.G. has opposed the contentions put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned A.P.G., appearing on behalf of the State, and gone through the entire material available on record, we are of the view that learned High Court has already issued direction to the learned trial court which shall conclude the trial of the case within a period of three months. However, the learned trial court shall proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously, which, in our opinion, is a sufficient period and will meet the ends of justice.
5. Resultantly, the present petition having no force of law is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. H.B.T./M-32/SC Leave refused.