1968S3200 (PLP)
N/A
| Citation | 1968S3200 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968S3200 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968S3200 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968S3200 (PLP) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Senior Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 21st May 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑‑On examining the records we find that the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses on which petitioner's conviction is based is not correctly represented in the order of the High Court. Sikander Khan, Sub‑Inspector Police, P. W. 6, under whose supervision the house of the petitioner and his brother Sharifullah was searched was positive that when he entered the house neither of them was preset at that time. On the contrary Arab Gul, P. W. 4, deposed that when the Police encircled the house of Shakirullah he saw him throwing a bag containing forged currency notes and sanchas in his compound. Similarly, while Musali Khan (P. W. 2). deposed that Rehan (P. W. 3) had brought a bag and handed over to the police during the search of the house of Shakirullah, Rehan himself stated that the bag remained lying in his house and the police recovered it from there. Prima facie if the house was encircled by the police as deposed to by the P. Ws., there was no possibility of the petitioner and his co‑accused escaping. However, as seen, the Sub‑Inspector Police did not find either of the two in the house. The, evidence relating to the production of the bag containing forged currency notes was equally of dubious value. In this view the interest of justice requires that the evidence on which the petitioner's conviction is based, he re‑examined by this Court. Leave to appeal is granted. Leave granted.