1982 PLP 1085 (SCMR)
LIAQAT-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1085 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Fact of evidence having not been correctly appreciated by lower Courts, held, no round for grant of leave to appeal.-Evidence. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LIAQAT-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1085 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 1085 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Fact of evidence having not been correctly appreciated by lower Courts, held, no round for grant of leave to appeal.-Evidence. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1085 (SCMR) (LIAQAT-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- F. M Anwari, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 22nd June, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of Lahore High Court dated 12-4-1982 passed in Cr. Revision No. 107/1982).
Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Fact of evidence having not been correctly appreciated by lower Courts, held, no round for grant of leave to appeal.-[Evidence]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J:-The petitioners were convicted for offence under section 366/323, P. P. C. by a Magistrate section 30, Lahore, and sentenced to 3 years R. 1 with a fine of Rs. 500 each and one month's R. I. each under section 323, P. P. %,. On appeal their conviction was maintained, Their criminal revision was dismissed by the High Court, vide the impugned judgment. Not feeling satisfied they have now filed the present petition for Leave to Appeal. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence. We are afraid this is not a good ground for grant of Leave to Appeal by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed