1986 P (PLP)
HAKAM ALI Petitioner Versus BAGGA and others Respondents
| Citation | 1986 P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | HAKAM ALI Petitioner Versus BAGGA and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P (PLP) (HAKAM ALI Petitioner Versus BAGGA and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Mohabbat Ali Dogar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 417(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 467/468/472/475/109‑ Acquittal‑‑Trial Court having applied conscious mind to evidence‑‑Sound and cogent reasons given in support of judgment‑‑Judgment neither illegal nor perverse‑‑Once accused is acquitted of charge, strong and exceptional reasons, held, would be required for interference in circumstances‑‑Petition was, therefore, dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 417(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 467/468/472/475/109‑ Acquittal‑‑Trial Court having applied conscious mind to evidence‑‑Sound and cogent reasons given in support of judgment‑‑Judgment neither illegal nor perverse‑‑Once accused is acquitted of charge, strong and exceptional reasons, held, would be required for interference in circumstances‑‑Petition was, therefore, dismissed. Sardar Mohabbat Ali Dogar for Petitioner. This Petition for Special Leave to Appeal arises from judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasur whereby he on 10‑6‑1984 acquitted Bagga, Qadir Bakhsh and Muhammad Amin, of the charges under section 468/467/475/472/109, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to take into account the material evidence and has acquitted the respondents without legal justification.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I find that the learned Magistrate has applied his conscious mind to the relevant evidence and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of his judgment. The judgment is neither illegal nor perverse. It is well‑settled that once an accused person is acquitted of I the charge then strong and exceptional reasons would be required for interference with the same which I do not see in the case in hand.
4. For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed in limine. S. A. Petition dismissed.