1987 PLP 648 (SCMR)
SH. SALAHUDDIN Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT UMAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 648 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ |
| Parties | SH. SALAHUDDIN Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT UMAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 648 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 648 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 648 (SCMR) (SH. SALAHUDDIN Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT UMAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaki‑ud‑Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Muhammad Latif Rawn Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Usman Ghani Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- A. Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate‑General for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Stay order‑‑Petitioner's possession directed not to be disturbed during pendency of matter in Supreme Court subject to his paying Rs.1, 800 p. m. as compensation for use and occupation from date of expiry of period granted by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Present: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., S. A. Nusrat, and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus RAJA AZHAR MAHMOOD and another‑‑Respondents Criminal Petition No.43‑K of 1985, decided on 11th August,1986. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi dated 13‑5‑1985 passed in Conf. Case No.19 of 1984 Criminal Appeal No.53 of 1984) . Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 300, Exception 1 & S.302‑‑Contention that High Court was in grave error in giving benefit of Exception 1 to S.300 to respondent as there was no evidence on record to justify it and that the alteration of conviction on capital charge had resulted in miscarriage of justice‑‑Matter, held, required consideration‑‑Leave to appeal granted. Usman Ghani Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. A. Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate‑General for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th August, 1986. MUHAMMAD HALEEM,.J.‑‑The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the High Court was in grave error in giving benefit oil Exception I to section 300 to the respondent, Raja Azhar Mahmood, as there was no evidence on record to justify it; and that the alteration of conviction on the capital charge has resulted in mss‑carriage of justice. Having examined the contention we are of the view that the matter requires consideration. Accordingly we would grant leave to' appeal to the petitioner. S.Q./M‑21/S Leave granted.