1990 PLP 613 (SCMR)
LIAQAT ALI alias DODA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 613 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Gludam Mujaddid and Saad Sanod Jan, JJ |
| Parties | LIAQAT ALI alias DODA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑, ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 613 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑, ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 613 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Gludam Mujaddid and Saad Sanod Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 613 (SCMR) (LIAQAT ALI alias DODA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th November, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court dated :10‑9‑1989 in Criminal Revision No.aRR of 1989). ‑‑‑S‑354‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt‑‑‑No effective argument was advanced for rejection of evidence of prosecution witness who was independent and had no animus to falsely depose against accused‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 26th November, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑‑There is hardly any merit in this petition for leave to appeal' against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 30‑9‑1989 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was‑dismissed. The petitioner was tried and convicted under section 354, P.P.C. He was sentenced to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000, or in default three months S.I., which was upheld in appeal as well as in revision. On 29‑8‑1987 at 8 a.m., when Mst.Zahida Parveen was on her own, the petitioner while armed with knife trespassed into her house and threatened her to outrage her modesty. He caught hold of her breast and started kissing the girl. It was on the intervention of Faryad Ali and others that the girl was saved from further damage. Prosecution proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. Learned counsel was unable to advance any effective argument as to why the evidence of Faryad Ali is to be rejected especially when the witness was independent and had no animus to falsely depose against the petitioner. Not a fit case for leave to appeal. Dismissed. N.H.O./L‑41/S Leave refused.