1990 PLP 17 (SCMR)
AMIR ZAMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 17 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ghulam Mujaddid |
| Parties | AMIR ZAMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 17 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 17 (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 17 (SCMR) (AMIR ZAMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989.
- Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. A.‑G. with Mrs. Gulshan Ara Alam, Advocate Supreme Court for State.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 8th February, 1988 in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.302/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal against acquittal was granted against accused A only where though there was only ocular evidence against him but the same found corroboration from other unimpeachable independent evidence. Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. A.‑G. with Mrs. Gulshan Ara Alam, Advocate Supreme Court for State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. A.‑G. with Mrs. Gulshan Ara Alam, Advocate Supreme Court for State. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑The respondents were convicted by the trial Court under section 302/149, P.P.C. and sentenced to death with fine of Rs.10,000 each as well as compensation amounting to Rs.10,000 each. They were also held guilty under section 148, P.P.C. and sentenced to three years, R.I. each. On appeal the High Court acquitted all of them. Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case against the respondents had been proved beyond doubt. The High Court, therefore, erred in law in letting them off. The judgment as such is not legally maintainable. We don't agree with this because the High Court after discussing the entire evidence found that the eye‑witnesses were related to the deceased; the parties were litigating both on civil as well as criminal side. It was for the foregoing reasons that the appeal was allowed. However, we think that so far as the acquittal of Muhammad Yaqub, Iftikhar, Muhammad Hanif and Ghulam Ali is concerned that was justified in law. The petition qua them is dismissed. We are inclined to grant leave to appeal against Abdul respondent because against him not only that there is ocular evidence but the same finds corroboration from other unimpeachable independent evidence, so his case needs examination. Non‑bailable warrants of arrest to issue against Abdul respondent. Learned counsel verbally requested for his bail. This request is turned down. Learned counsel if he so wishes may apply for the bail at proper time after arrest. M.A.K./A‑598/S Order accordingly.