P L D 2000 Federal Shariat Court 63 (PLP)
ABDUL KALAM‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2000 Federal Shariat Court 63 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Gul Muhammad Khan, C. J., |
| Parties | ABDUL KALAM‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Federal Shariat Court 63 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2000 Federal Shariat Court 63 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Gul Muhammad Khan, C. J.,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Federal Shariat Court 63 (PLP) (ABDUL KALAM‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ayub Khanzada for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 17th March 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 10(3)‑‑‑Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.5‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Non‑registration of Nikah‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Accused had claimed that age of girl according to her own mother was 16/17 years and that her Nikah with him was proved by three witnesses against whom nothing had been said in cross‑examination‑‑‑Contention of prosecution was that as Nikah was not registered and was not found in Register of Nikah and also that thumb‑impression was also not found to be that of girl, Nikah was not proved‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Registration of Nikah was not necessarily the proof of Nikah as, in Muslim Law Nikah could be performed by offer and acceptance in presence of witnesses‑‑‑Non‑registration of Nikah would only attract a penalty under S.5(4) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961‑‑‑In absence of any error in Nikah of accused with the girl, conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court were set aside and he was acquitted. Niaz Ahmad for the State
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeal No.99/K of 1986, decided on 17the March, 1987. ‑‑‑‑S. 10(3)‑‑‑Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.5‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Non‑registration of Nikah‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Accused had claimed that age of girl according to her own mother was 16/17 years and that her Nikah with him was proved by three witnesses against whom nothing had been said in cross‑examination‑‑‑Contention of prosecution was that as Nikah was not registered and was not found in Register of Nikah and also that thumb‑impression was also not found to be that of girl, Nikah was not proved‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Registration of Nikah was not necessarily the proof of Nikah as, in Muslim Law Nikah could be performed by offer and acceptance in presence of witnesses‑‑‑Non‑registration of Nikah would only attract a penalty under S.5(4) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961‑‑‑In absence of any error in Nikah of accused with the girl, conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court were set aside and he was acquitted. Muhammad Ayub Khanzada for Appellant. Niaz Ahmad for the State Date of hearing: 17th March 1987.