1989 SCMR 1945 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI Petitioner Versus SIKANDAR HAYAT and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1945 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Majaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI Petitioner Versus SIKANDAR HAYAT and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1945 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1945 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal, Ghulam Majaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1945 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI Petitioner Versus SIKANDAR HAYAT and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Sated Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 1989.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. Advocate‑General and Ghulam Mustafa Bodla, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9‑3‑1987 in Criminal Appeal No.341/84 and M. R. No.84 of 1984) ‑‑‑Ss.302 & 304, Part II‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider the reason given by High Court whereby the conviction and sentence of accused was altered from S.302, P.P.C. to S.304, Part II, P.P.C., requiring detailed examination so as to make sure whether there was any legal justification for such an alteration and reducing the sentence when the same was not warranted by law. Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. Advocate‑General and Ghulam Mustafa Bodla, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Mohammad Ali son of Sarwar Khan, resident of Chak No. 56/NB, Police Station Saddar District Sargodha has filed two separate .petitions against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9‑3‑1987. Petition No.109/87 is for enhancement of sentence. The other v (Cr.P.110/87) is against the acquittal of Rab Nawaz respondent. Learned counsel did not press Criminal Petition No.110/87. The same is hereby dismissed. In the other petition we have heard learned counsel and have also perused the impugned judgment. We think it is a fit case for leave to appeal. The reason given by the High Court whereby the conviction and sentence of respondents 1 and 2 was altered from section 302 to 304, Part II, P.P.C. requires detailed examination so as to make sure whether there was any legal justification for such an alteration and reducing the sentence when the same is not warranted by law. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.30,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sargodha. MA.K/M‑952/S Leave granted.