1990 PLP 278 (SCMR)
Mst. BAKHAT KHATOON-‑Petitioner Versus AWWAL JANG and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 278 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid |
| Parties | Mst. BAKHAT KHATOON-‑Petitioner Versus AWWAL JANG and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 278 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 278 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 278 (SCMR) (Mst. BAKHAT KHATOON-‑Petitioner Versus AWWAL JANG and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989.
- M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 7th March, 1987 in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1983/M.R. No. 2/83). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Criminal trial‑‑‑High Court after scanning through the entire evidence observed that `in the present case, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses had not been corroborated by any such evidence‑‑‑Recoveries were of no consequence and they were in no manner connected with the crime‑‑ Judgment of High Court being in accord with law and principles governing safe administration of criminal justice called for no interference‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed. M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Abul Aasim Jafari, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. M. B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.
2. M. Akhtar, Additional Advocate‑General and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated the 7th March, 1987. The High Court on appeal by the respondents declined to uphold the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and acquitted them. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that the judgment of the High Court resulted in miscarriage of justice. The acquittal of the respondents was not justified in law. The submission has no force because the High Court after scanning through the entire evidence observed that "in the present case, the testimonies of Mst. Bakht Khatun and Muhammad Nawaz Khan have not been corroborated by any such evidence. The. recoveries, as already held, in this case are of no consequence and they are in no manner connected with the crime." The judgment of the High Court being in accord with law and the principles governing the safe administration of criminal justice calls for no interference. Dismissed. M.A.K./B‑129/S Petition dismissed.