1990 PLP 301 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 301 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah, Ghulam Mujaddid and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 301 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 301 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah, Ghulam Mujaddid and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 301 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Khan Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989.
- M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General with Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 6th April, 1987, passed in Cr. Revision No. 70 of 1985). ‑‑‑S.323‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑High Court acquitted accused finding that Additional Sessions Judge had failed to consider significant fact that the Trial Court disbelieved testimony of alleged eye‑witnesses and case against co‑accused was found doubtful and also complainant had a background of enmity with accused and their father‑‑‑Finding recorded by High Court being unexceptionable, needed no interference‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General with Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.323‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑High Court acquitted accused finding that Additional Sessions Judge had failed to consider significant fact that the Trial Court disbelieved testimony of alleged eye‑witnesses and case against co‑accused was found doubtful and also complainant had a background of enmity with accused and their father‑‑‑Finding recorded by High Court being unexceptionable, needed no interference‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. Malik Muhammad Khan Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and
3. M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General with Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 6‑4‑1987, whereby Criminal Revision No. 70 of 1985 filed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 against their convictions under section 323, P.P.C. and sentence to three months' R.I. for causing injuries to Muhammad Akhtar petitioner, awarded to them by Magistrate Section 30 Burewala and affirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Vehari on 28‑3‑1985, was accepted and they were acquitted by the impugned judgment. The learned High Court in this case has observed that the Addl. Sessions t Judge failed to consider the significant fact that the learned Magistrate Section 30 disbelieved the testimony of the alleged eye‑witnesses and the case against the co -accused of the respondents No.2‑3 was found doubtful and also Muhammad Akhtar complainant who had a background of enmity with the respondents and their father and while agreeing with the Magistrate, the Addl. Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under sections 341 and 506 and the conviction on the solitary statement of Muhammad Akhtar petitioner was held to be not free from reasonable doubt. The High Court while accepting the revision petition set aside the conviction of the respondents Nos.2‑3 and acquitted them from the charges. Under the circumstances and facts of the case we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment is unexceptional and needs no interference by this Court. The petition is therefore, dismissed. M.A.K./M‑1060/S Petition dismissed.