1993 P Cr (PLP)
SALEHON — Appellant Versus YAQUB and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SALEHON — Appellant Versus YAQUB and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (SALEHON — Appellant Versus YAQUB and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 204 & 203
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16
Relying on the evidence of prosecution witnesses during preliminary inquiry Trial Court had issued process against the accused, but subsequently considering the same evidence it acquitted the accused of the charge
Trial Court should have passed an appropriate order after giving opportunity to the complainant to produce evidence
Such order of Trial Court acquitting the accused was consequently set aside and the case was remanded to Trial Court for affording opportunity to the prosecution to produce its evidence and then to dispose of the case on merits according to law.
Judgment & Decree
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, CJ.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-2-1991 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Chiniot without giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence had acquitted the respondents of the charge under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. It may be pertinent to observe that earlier while relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses during preliminary inquiry the learned Additional Sessions Judge had issued process against the respondents. Then considering the same evidence he acquitted the respondents of the charge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot should have given opportunity to the complain art to produce evidence and then passed appropriate order. The learned counsel for the State does not support the impugned judgment. The judgment dated 10-2-1991 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot for affording opportunity to the prosecution to produce its evidence and dispose of the case according to law on merits. N.H.Q./789/FSC Case remanded.