P (PLP)
ABDUL RASHID — ‑Appellant‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑‑ — Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Rashid, C. J., A. Rahman and A. S. M. Akram, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID — ‑Appellant‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑‑ — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Rashid, C. J., A. Rahman and A. S. M. Akram, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (ABDUL RASHID — ‑Appellant‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Mohsin Shah, Senior Advocate, Federal Court, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Federal Court‑Practice‑Point whether sanction to pro secute 'was legally proved not raised before trial Court or Court of appeal or revision‑Not to be allowed to be raised for first time before Federal Court‑Question of sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence for conviction.‑Not one to be agitated before Federal Court. The point that the sanction for the prosecution of the accused had not been legally proved was not raised on behalf of defence in the trial Court, nor in Courts of appeal or revision. The point would not be allowed to be raised for the first time before the Federal Court. The question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence, which forms the basis of the conviction, cannot be agitated in the Federal Court.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL RASHID, C. J.--‑On behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Mohsin Shah contended that the sanction for the prosecution of the accused had not been legally proved. This point was not raised on behalf of the defence in the trial Court. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge. This point was not taken in that appeal. The contention that the sanction for prosecution had not been legally proved was not raised even when the High Court disposed of this case in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, we are not prepared to allow this point to be raised for the first time in this Court. Had an objection been taken in the trial Court that the sanction for prosecution had not been legally proved, the prosecution could have rectified the defect. The question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence, which forms the basis of the conviction, cannot be agitated in this Court. We, therefore, dismiss this petition for special leave to appeal. A. H. Petition dismissed. Attorney for Petitioner:‑--A. R. Niazi.