1969 P Cr (PLP)
HAKAM DIN AND OTHERS-‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE,‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | HAKAM DIN AND OTHERS-‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE,‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 P Cr (PLP) (HAKAM DIN AND OTHERS-‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE,‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asad Hussain Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abid A. Buttar, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 9th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal front the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 7th June 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 518 of 1968). Petal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 452, 323 & 325‑‑Case under Ss. 432, 323 & 325‑‑Accused acquitted under S. 452 but convicted under Ss. 323 & 325‑Contention that acquittal on charge under S. 452, it circumstances, completely demolished prosecution case‑‑Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider whether conviction justified and legal in circumstance. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Asad Hussain Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abid A. Buttar, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 9th October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN J.‑The petitioners in this case were convicted under sections 148, 323, 325 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with section 149, P. P. C. and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by the Additional District Magistrate, Sialkot. On appeal, however, the learned Sessions Judge of Sialkot set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to the petitioners under section 452, P. P. C. but maintained the convictions under sections 323 and 325, P. P. C. read with sections 149 and 148, P. P. C., but reduced the sentences under section 325 from 2 years' rigorous imprisonment each to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. From this the petitioners went up in revision before the High Court but the High Court dismissed the revision petition in liming. They now seek special leave to appeal and it is contended on their behalf that the High Court has failed to notice that the acquittal of the petitioners under section 452, P.P.C. has completely demolished the prosecution case, for, this acquittal could only have been made on the basis that the petitioners, as they claimed, were in possession of the tube‑well in pursuance of their alleged purchase thereof. If this be so, then they had a right also to resist being dispossessed and to throw the trespassers out by force and if in the course thereof, the complainant party had received some injuries, those injuries were justified as having been caused in the exercise of the right of private defence of property. This aspect of the case has, unfortunately, not been noticed by the High Court. It does, however, raise a substantial question of law relating to the validity of the convictions of the petitioners We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the effect of the acquittal of the petitioners in respect of the offence under, section 452, P. P. C. on the rest of the case. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court the petitioners will be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate. Leave granted.