1990 PLP 623 (SCMR)
ZULIFQAR alias BHUTTO and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 623 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ZULIFQAR alias BHUTTO and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 623 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 623 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 623 (SCMR) (ZULIFQAR alias BHUTTO and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.458/34, 394/34, 307/34, 109, 392 & 411‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑While dealing with appeal of accused against their conviction and sentence by Special Judge for Speedy Trials, High Court had considered entire evidence and dismissed appeal with alteration in conviction and sentence of one accused‑‑‑No evidence was available on record to indicate that either complainant or prosecution witnesses had any animus to depose against accused regarding a very daring and broad daylight incident‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.458/34, 394/34, 307/34, 109, 392 & 411‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑While dealing with appeal of accused against their conviction and sentence by Special Judge for Speedy Trials, High Court had considered entire evidence and dismissed appeal with alteration in conviction and sentence of one accused‑‑‑No evidence was available on record to indicate that either complainant or prosecution witnesses had any animus to depose against accused regarding a very daring and broad daylight incident‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was refused. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Zulifqar alias Bhutto and others have petitioned through jail for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 2-4‑1988. The High Court while dealing with the appeal of the petitioners against their conviction and sentence by the Special Judge for Speedy Trials No.VI, Bahawalpur, rnncidcred the entire evidence and accordingly dismissed the same. However, the conviction of Arib was altered from section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 to one under section 394/34, P.P.C. and he was sentenced to ten years' R.I. and fine of Rs.l0,t)t)0 or in default two years' R.I. I have not come across any evidence so as to indicate that either the complainant or the prosecution witnesses had any animus to depose against the petitioners. It was a broad daylight incident. Very daring indeed. I don't find any merit in this petition and would accordingly dismiss the same. N.H.Q./Z‑80/S Petition dismissed.