1986 PLP 1641 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YASIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1641 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1641 (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 1641 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1641 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YASIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hafeez Memon, Advocate Supreme Court and R.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1986.
- Abdul Hafeez Memon, Advocate Supreme Court and R.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 3-4-1986 in Criminal Revision Application No. 3 of 1984).
Art. 185(3)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 435--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.304-A--Order of all three Courts below, upholding conviction recorded against accused under S.304-A, Penal Code, arrived at as a result of concurrent findings that prosecution had successfully proved case against accused under S.304-A, P.P.C.--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dismissing a revision application filed by the petitioner and thereby upholding the conviction recorded against the petitioner under section 304‑A, Pakistan Penal Code for which he was sentenced to two years' R.I. and pay fine of Rs.3,
000. After having heard the learned counsel in support of the petition we find that no exception can be taken against the concurrent findings of all the three Courts below that the prosecution has successfully under section 304‑A. The petition has, therefore, no merit and is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.