1990 PLP 570 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 570 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid 1qbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 11160)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 570 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 11160)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 570 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid 1qbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 570 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Anwar Bhinder, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19‑4‑1988 in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal
Contentions that accused‑petitioner had been roped in because of his relationship with co‑accused and his participation in alleged occurrence was very doubtful were Natters of appreciation of evidence which had been done by the High court‑‑‑Reappraisal of evidence was not needed‑‑‑Neither any error of law nor of fact which needed examination was found‑‑‑Leave to appeal was thus refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th September, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑ This petition for leave to appeal is only by Muhammad Sharif although Shaukat Ali and Riasat Ali were also tried alongwith him for the murder of Abdul Jabbar which took place on 1‑7‑1981 at 6 a.m. in the 3rd class bogey of trial at Railway Station, Rahwali, and sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine of Rs.5,000 each by judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. On appeal to the Lahore High Court, their conviction and sentence was upheld. Learned counsel appearing m support of this petition contended that the petitioner has been roped in because of his relationship with the co‑accused. Even, otherwise, his participation in the alleged occurrence, according to the counsel, was very doubtful. These are matters of appreciation of evidence which has been done by the High Court. We are not going to reappraise the evidence. We don't think there is either any error of law or even of fact which needs examination. N.H.Q./M‑1168/S Appeal dismissed.