1986 PLP (2) (SCMR)
ALLAH YAR alias YARA and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP (2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH YAR alias YARA and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP (2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP (2) (SCMR) (ALLAH YAR alias YARA and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhter Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 7th April, 1986.
- Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhter Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28-5-1985 passed in Murder Reference No. 88 of 1982, and Criminal Revision No. 581 of 1982) .
Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34--Petition for leave to appeal--Contentions raised by counsel for accused amounting only to a prayer for reappraisal of evidence on record and to reverse findings of facts arrived at by Courts below--Supreme Court not to enter into such exercise--Petition dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Allah Yar alias Yara and others petitioners (herein) seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore convicting them under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at a considerable length. The contention raised by him amount only to a prayer for reappraisal of evidence on the record and to reverse findings of facts arrived at by the Court its below. We 'are afraid in the circumstances of this case we cannot consider it proper to enter into this exercise. This petition, is, therefore, dismissed as having no force. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.