1969 PLP 6 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJID‑Petitioner Versus NISAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 6 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID‑Petitioner Versus NISAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sentence‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 6 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sentence‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 6 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 6 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJID‑Petitioner Versus NISAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 9th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 6‑2‑1968, in Criminal Revision No. 291 of 1966). --Question whether on facts of case as found by High Court exception (4) to S. 300, P. P. C. was rightly invoked to alter ' conviction under S. 302 to one under S. 304 (11), P. P. C.‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 304, Part II.
Judgment & Decree
Question whether on facts of case as found by High Court exception (4) to S. 300, P. P. C. was rightly invoked to alter ' conviction under S. 302 to one under S. 304 (11), P. P. C.‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 304, Part II. Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 9th October 1968. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The respondent‑Nisar Ahmad was convicted for the murder of Javed, brother of the petitioner (section 302, P. P. C.) and sentenced to transportation for life. On appeal in the High Court the conviction has been altered to one under section 304(11), P. P. C. and sentence reduced to 5 years' R. I. The petitioner's application for enhancement of the respondents's sentence was thus rendered infructuous. The question requires consideration whether on the facts of the case, as found by the High Court, exception (4) to section 300, P. P. C. was rightly invoked to justify the alteration of the respondent's conviction under section 304(11), P. P. C. and the consequent reduction in the sentence. Leave is granted as prayed for. Leave granted.