1986 PLP 1830 (SCMR)
ABDUR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1830 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1830 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1830 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1830 (SCMR) (ABDUR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mahmudul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th May, 1986.
- Ch. Mahmudul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment/Order, dated 30-9-1984 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 1981).
Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 409, 471 109- Prevention of Corruption Act (I1 of 1947), S. 5(2)--Petition for leave to appeal--Contention that person originally accused had been acquitted under S.249-A, Criminal Procedure Code, and subsequently produced as prosecution witness and seven other persons who were also originally co--accused in case were produced by prosecution in support of its case and they probably supported prosecution in order to get themselves exonerated--Contention having force and matter requiring further consideration--Leave granted. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 30‑9‑1984, dismissing his appeal in a case under sections 406, 409 and 471, P.P.C. read with section 109, P.P.C. and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and was sentenced inter alia to 2 years' R.I.
2. The main contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is that although the Manager of the Forms Press, who prepared the report Exh . P. C. was an accused person in the first instance but he was acquitted under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. and was subsequently produced as a prosecution witness. He added that as a matter of fact as many as 7 other persons, who were also originally co‑accused in the case, have been produced by the prosecution in support of its case and that they were probably persuaded to support the prosecution case in order to get themselves exonerated.
3. We feel that the contention has force and the matter needs further consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose. M. Y. H. Leave granted.