2017 PLP 232 (YLRN)
The STATE — Appellant Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 232 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | The STATE — Appellant Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 232 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 232 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 232 (YLRN) (The STATE — Appellant Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Johar Ali for Respondents.
- 2. The learned Dy. Advocate General took me through the statements of 8 PWs in support of his contention that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true prospectives which caused miscarriage of justice and the impugned judgment be set aside in the interest of justice.
- 3. On the other hand Mr. Johar Ali, Advocate learned counsel for respondents controverted the arguments of learned Dy. Advocate General and stated at bar that no specific role has been attributed to the respondents and they have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them by the trial Court after due application of judicial mind. The learned counsel for respondent further contended that there are different parameters to upset an appeal of acquittal as presumption of innocence is always attached with an accused which is multiplied after earning an acquittal from a Court of competent jurisdiction.
- 4. I have heard the parties at length and on my repeated quarries to the learned Dy. Advocate General regarding specific role of any respondent from the prosecution evidence, the learned Dy. Advocate General could not satisfy the Court and stated that general allegations are attributed to the respondents, so I see no infirmity or any material irregularity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the Cr. Appeal No.60/2016 filed by the appellant/state is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 337-A, 144, 427, 341, 342 & 506
Hurt, joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation
On repeated quarries to the counsel for complainant regarding specific role of any accused from the prosecution evidence, counsel for complainant could not satisfy the Court and stated that general allegations were attributed to the accused
No infirmity or any material irregularity existed in the impugned judgment of acquittal
Appeal was dismissed accordingly. [Para. 4 of the judgment] Malik Sherbaz, Dy. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment/order of learned Judicial Magistrate Astore, whereby he acquitted the respondents from the charges leveled against them in FIR No. 09/2008 of Police Station Astore.
2. The learned Dy. Advocate General took me through the statements of 8 PWs in support of his contention that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true prospectives which caused miscarriage of justice and the impugned judgment be set aside in the interest of justice.
3. On the other hand Mr. Johar Ali, Advocate learned counsel for respondents controverted the arguments of learned Dy. Advocate General and stated at bar that no specific role has been attributed to the respondents and they have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them by the trial Court after due application of judicial mind. The learned counsel for respondent further contended that there are different parameters to upset an appeal of acquittal as presumption of innocence is always attached with an accused which is multiplied after earning an acquittal from a Court of competent jurisdiction.
4. I have heard the parties at length and on my repeated quarries to the learned Dy. Advocate General regarding specific role of any respondent from the prosecution evidence, the learned Dy. Advocate General could not satisfy the Court and stated that general allegations are attributed to the respondents, so I see no infirmity or any material irregularity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the Cr. Appeal No.60/2016 filed by the appellant/state is dismissed. WA/20/GB Appeal dismissed.