1985 PLP 989 (SCMR)
GH1ASUDDIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 989 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | GH1ASUDDIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 989 (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 989 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 989 (SCMR) (GH1ASUDDIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 28th April, 1983. `
- Usman Ghani Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Rashid Akhtar Qureshi,
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court Karachi, dated 15‑2‑1983 passed in Criminal Revision No. 187 of 1980). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435 & 439‑ Interlocutory order passed by High Court directing production of documents necessary for examination to consider a plea raised by petitioner in support of revision application‑‑Hardly open to challenge‑ Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Leave refused. Usman Ghani Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge, dated 15‑2‑1983 directing the petitioner to produce certain documents which were necessary for examination in order to consider a plea raised by him in support of the revision application. By the same order learned Judge further directed that the complainant in the case be joined as a co‑respondent in the revision application. Since the learned Judge passed this order as he wished to be satisfied with a plea raised by the petitioner, it is hardly open to him to challenge the order. In any case, the order is of interlocutory nature, and interference by this Court is not called for. Leave is refused and the petition is dismissed. M.I. Leave refused.