1987 PLP 1524 (SCMR)
MUBARIK alias MARRI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1524 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUBARIK alias MARRI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1524 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1524 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1524 (SCMR) (MUBARIK alias MARRI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 19th May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1‑4‑1986 in Crl. Appeal No. 341 of 1983). ‑‑‑S. 302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioner making two petitions for special leave to appeal, one directly filed through counsel and the other submitted through Jail‑‑Petition directly filed coming up for hearing but jail petitions not brought to notice of Court at that time‑‑Former petition dismissed on merits after hearing counsel‑‑Jail petition found to be barred by 58 days and therefore dismissed. Nemo for the Parties.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, Mubarik alias Marri was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were maintained and confirmed by the High Court. He preferred two petitions for special leave to appeal. One was directly filed in this Court through counsel and the other was submitted through jail. Unfortunately when the petition directly filed in this Court came up for hearing the jail petition was not brought to our notice. The former petition was dismissed on merits after the petitioner's counsel had been given a hearing. The second petition preferred through jail is barred by 58 days. In the circumstances we would dismiss this petition as well. S.Q./M‑127/S Petition dismissed.