1989 PLP 1489 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALI and 6 others Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1489 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI and 6 others Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1489 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1489 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1489 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALI and 6 others Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Shakoor, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑12‑1988) in Criminal Appeal No.136 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.307/326/324/148/149‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Petitioner had not pressed the appeal on merits before the High Court but had requested for the reduction of sentence on the ground of its being harsh and that request was allowed by the High Court‑‑Supreme Court did not permit petitioner to argue his case on merits and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Muhammad Ali, his two brothers Khushi Muhammad and Mukhtar and Murad Ali and his three sons Rashid Ali, Haider Ali and Muhammad Sharif have filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑12‑1988 whereby their appeal against their conviction and sentence under section 307/326/324/148/149, P.P.C. was dismissed. Before us learned counsel wanted to argue the matter on merits but we did not permit him to do so the reason being that he did not press the appeal on merits before the High Court. There the request was for the reduction of sentence because it was argued that the sentence awarded by the Magistrate was harsh. As is evident from the judgment of the High Court, this request was allowed and the sentence reduced. We cannot do anything more for the petitioners. Dismissed. M.B.A./M‑841/S Petition dismissed.