1989 PLP 608 (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 608 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Electricity Act (IX of 1910) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 608 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Electricity Act (IX of 1910) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 608 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 608 (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Bashir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1988.
- Rana Muhammad Bashir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 2-7-1988, passed in Criminal Revision No.377 of 1988).
S.39-A--Conviction--Prosecution had been able to prove its case on factual grounds against accused by producing independent witnesses--On legal aspect too, no case had been made out by defence--Conviction and sentence being well- founded not interfered with in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASN, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 2‑7‑1988.
2. The petitioner was charged under section 39‑A of the Electricity Act, 1910. He was tried by the Senior Special Magistrate, WAPDA, Lahore, and was convicted there under and sentenced to three years' R. I. vide judgment dated 4‑10‑1987. The appeal of the petitioner was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by his order dated 9‑6‑1988 in that his conviction under section 39‑A was maintained but his sentence was reduced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 was imposed upon him. His revision before the High Court was dismissed on 2‑7‑1988 in limine.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgments of the Courts below. As the record stands, we think the prosecution has been able to prove its case on factual grounds against the petitioner by producing independent witnesses. On legal aspect too no case has been made out. His conviction and sentence is well‑found and it needs no interference. The petition is thus dismissed. MA.K./A‑397/S Petition dismissed.