2001 PLP 3241 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RASHID‑‑‑Appellant Versus ZAIDULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 3241 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (A.J&K) |
| Bench Members | Basharat Ahmad Shaikh and Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RASHID‑‑‑Appellant Versus ZAIDULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 3241 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 3241 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (A.J&K) bench comprising: Basharat Ahmad Shaikh and Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 3241 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RASHID‑‑‑Appellant Versus ZAIDULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Mallick, Advocate for Appellant.
- Sher Zaman Choudri, Advocate for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th February, 2000.
- 3. The learned counsel for respondent Zaidullah, Mr.Sher Zaman Choudri, opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the first information and submitted that Dr. Sajjad Hussain Malik is an official doctor and certificate issued by him carries presumption of truth which could be rebutted by the other party but no such effort was made. He contended that it has to be presumed that the necessary documents showing that Zaidullah was under‑treatment of General Zulfiqar Ali Khan were produced before Dr.? Sajjad Hussain Malik. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the certificate given by Medical Officer showed that E.C.G. was conducted in District Headquarters Hospital, Koth and its result is also mentioned therein. The learned counsel drew our attention to the fact that it is mentioned in the certificate that petitioner's X‑ray showed enlargement of heart as well as heart failure. The learned counsel relied on the cases reported as Noor Khan v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1249, Haji Mir Aftab v. The State (1979 SCMR 320) and Barkat Ali and 3 others v. The State (1981 PCr.LJ 274) in support of his contention.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Court, dated 25‑8‑1999 in Criminal Revision No. 79 of 1999). ‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Grant of bail on ground of illness‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Bail was granted to the accused on ground of his illness on basis of Medical Certificate issued by an official doctor of D. H. Q. Hospital‑‑‑Nothing was on record to create any doubt in the Medical Certificate‑‑‑E. C. G. and X‑Rays of the accused who was a heart patient, were conducted at the hospital which showed that the accused had enlarged heart and that he suffered from heart failure and unstable angina‑‑‑Credence could also be given to the note written by the Medical Officer that the accused had been under treatment of a doctor who was Cardiologist of Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology‑‑‑Discretion exercised by the Court in granting bail to the accused did not appear to be arbitrary and the same having been exercised on the basis of official record, no case was made out for interference. Noor Khan v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1249; Haji Mir Aftab v. The State 1979 SCMR 320 and Barkat Ali and 3 others v. The State 1981 PCr.IJ 274 ref.
Judgment & Decree
BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑Respondent Zaidullah is one of the accused persons who are facing trial under section 302 of the Penal Code read with some other sections of the said Code. They applied for bail before the trial Court but their bail application was rejected. Respondent Zaidullah as well as accused persons Mehboob, Khizar Hayat, Zafar, and Naeem (not before the Court) filed a revision petition before the Shariat Court. The Shariat Court has enlarged Zaidullah on bail while rest of accused persons have been refused this cession. Bail has been granted to dullah on the basis of his illness. The er passed by the Shariat Court has been llenged by first informant Muhammad .hid by filing this appeal as of right. Respondent Zaidullah was admitted in trict Headquarters Hospital and under sections of the trial Court the following certificate about his health was submitted: "4-6‑1999??????? Admitted in D.H.Q. Hospital, Kotli on 26‑5‑1999 with M/O severe pain chest left side. +dysponca He is a known case of I.H.D. as his old record since 1992 and is under treatment of General Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Cardiologist, Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, Rawalpindi. He is non‑diabetic. He had E.T.T. in past which is positive for stress test. ‑‑‑Present E.C.G. shows ‑ left vendriculent Hypethropy with S.T.T. segment change and Multiple Ectopries. ‑‑‑??????? X‑rays shows cardiac enlargement with failure. ‑‑‑ He is diagnosed as a case of unstable Angina (I.H.D:) with heart failure and is under our treatment. (Sd.) (Dr.? Sajjad Hussain Malik), M.B., B.S."
2. It was vehemently contended by Mr.Abdul Majid Mallick, the learned counsel the appellant, that the doctor has described Zaidullah as a known case of heart decease but he has not disclosed the basis on which he gave this finding. He also submitted that there is no record to substantiate the claim that Zaidullah was under‑treatment of General Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Cardiologist, Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology, Rawalpindi. It was also contended by him that there is no E. C. G. or X‑ray available in the file and also contended that the doctor did not give the view that the respondent cannot be properly treated in the Jail. Mr.Abdul Majid Mallick also alleged that the certificate reproduced above had been obtained as a result of manipulation. .
3. The learned counsel for respondent Zaidullah, Mr.Sher Zaman Choudri, opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the first information and submitted that Dr. Sajjad Hussain Malik is an official doctor and certificate issued by him carries presumption of truth which could be rebutted by the other party but no such effort was made. He contended that it has to be presumed that the necessary documents showing that Zaidullah was under‑treatment of General Zulfiqar Ali Khan were produced before Dr.? Sajjad Hussain Malik. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the certificate given by Medical Officer showed that E.C.G. was conducted in District Headquarters Hospital, Koth and its result is also mentioned therein. The learned counsel drew our attention to the fact that it is mentioned in the certificate that petitioner's X‑ray showed enlargement of heart as well as heart failure. The learned counsel relied on the cases reported as Noor Khan v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1249, Haji Mir Aftab v. The State (1979 SCMR 320) and Barkat Ali and 3 others v. The State (1981 PCr.LJ 274) in support of his contention.
4. In our considered view there is nothing on the record to create any doubt in the certificate issued by Dr.? Sajjad Hussain Malik. E.C.G., and X‑rays were conducted at the District Headquarters Hospital which showed that Zaidullah had enlarged heart and that he suffers from heart failure in addition to being a case of unstable angina. Credence has also to be given to the note written by the Medical Officer that Zaidullah had been under‑treatment of General Zulfiqar Ali Khan.
5. In these circumstances, the discretion exercised by the Shariat Court does not appear to be arbitrary. It has been exercised on the basis of official record. Therefore no case of interference has been made out. The appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./229/SC(AJ&K)??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.