1990 PLP 300 (SCMR)
Dr. Capt. RIZWAN QADIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NAEEMULLAH HASHMI and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 300 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and |
| Parties | Dr. Capt. RIZWAN QADIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NAEEMULLAH HASHMI and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 300 (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 300 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 300 (SCMR) (Dr. Capt. RIZWAN QADIR‑‑Petitioner Versus NAEEMULLAH HASHMI and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Sarfraz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. M. Anwar Bhinder, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989.
- M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General with S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23‑6‑1986, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 1985). ‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑High Court acquitted accused observing that there was nothing on the record to show that before the day of occurrence complainant knew the accused by face‑‑‑Contention that since complainant did not state that accused was not previously known to him, it would be presumed that he knew the accused by face‑‑‑Leave was granted to examine the contention that no presumption arose under circumstances of the case that accused was seen for the first time at place of occurrence and for that reason identification parade was not called for as the occurrence took place in broad daylight in which accused was fully identified by son of the deceased. M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General with S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑High Court acquitted accused observing that there was nothing on the record to show that before the day of occurrence complainant knew the accused by face‑‑‑Contention that since complainant did not state that accused was not previously known to him, it would be presumed that he knew the accused by face‑‑‑Leave was granted to examine the contention that no presumption arose under circumstances of the case that accused was seen for the first time at place of occurrence and for that reason identification parade was not called for as the occurrence took place in broad daylight in which accused was fully identified by son of the deceased. Kh. Sarfraz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. M. Anwar Bhinder, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l. M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General with S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23‑6‑1986, whereby criminal appeal of the respondent No.1 against his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. and sentence to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000 awarded to him by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad for the murder of Abdul Qadir (deceased) was accepted and he was acquitted. The High Court while acquitting the accused/respondent observed that there was nothing on the record to show that before the day of occurrence the complainant knew the accused by face. The contention that since the complainant did not state that the accused was not previously known to him, it should be presumed that he knew him by face, according to the High Court is devoid of force. As no such presumption arises under the circumstances of the present case that the accused/respondent was seen for the first time at the place of occurrence. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the identification parade was not called for as the occurrence took place in the broad daylight in which the accused was fully identified by the son of the deceased. The contention raised by the learned counsel needs further examination of this Court. Leave to appeal is therefore, granted for the said purpose. Let non‑bailable warrants be issued against the respondent Naeem Ullah Hashmi. M.A.K./R‑118/S Leave granted.