1989 PLP 1164 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus FAQIR HUSSAIN KHAN and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1164 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus FAQIR HUSSAIN KHAN and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1164 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evidence Act (I of 1872)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1164 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1164 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus FAQIR HUSSAIN KHAN and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.M.A. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Date of hearing: 8th March, 1989.
- Irshad Ahmad Khan Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of ‑ the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑10‑1985, passed in Criminal Petition No. 24 of 1977) ‑‑‑S. 78‑-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Death‑‑Proof‑‑Document evidencing death of a person not authenticated as required under S. 78, held, would be inadmissible in evidence‑‑Leave refused. Irshad Ahmad Khan Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner before us had filed a complaint under section 193/34, P.P.C. against the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 before Section 30 Magistrate, alleging that by forged documents showing the death of Mst. Hashmate Bibi wife of Wazir Ali as 6‑3‑1961, they claimed her share in inheritance in the estate of Muhammad Tufail being her brother, who died in December, 1960, and got falsely Rs.10,000 from the petitioner as consideration of their share in the estate. The learned Magistrate Faisalabad after making a thorough inquiry and recording the evidence bf the witnesses produced by the parties held that the complainant Muhammad Khan has failed to produce sufficient material evidence against the accused party and vide his order dated 10‑9‑1977, acquitted the accused party from the charges levelled against them. The petitioner filed an application under section 417 of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal from the order of acquittal dated 10‑9‑1977 of the M.I.C. Faisalabad. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide his short order held that the document on the basis of which tire petitioner wanted to prove the death of Mst. Hashmate before the creation of Pakistan, on 26‑5‑1943 in District Hoshiarpur is not authenticated as required under section 78 of the Evidence Act, thus is not admissible in evidence, and dismissed the petition in limine. Now the petitioner has come up to this Court for leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we do not think that this petition has any merit, which deserves dismissal straightaway. It is an admitted fact that Mst. Hashmate Bibi was the sister of Muhammad Tufail and the respondents are her successors‑in‑interest. The question whether she had died on 26‑5‑1943 at Hoshiarpur (India) or in Pakistan in Tehsil Chishtian on 6‑3‑1961 is a question of fact which has rightly been concluded by the Courts below in favour of the respondents. The document produced by the petitioner in support of his claim does not bear material authenticity whereas against it the record produced by Majid Ahmad (P.W.7) Secretary Union Council, showing the death of Mst. Hashmate Bibi as occurred. on 6‑3‑1961 is more genuine and plausible. Under the circumstances, we do not think that any case for consideration of this Court has been made out. Leave to appeal is therefore, refused. M.BA./M‑821/S Leave refused.