1991 P Cr (PLP)
NOOR ELAHI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR ELAHI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (NOOR ELAHI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Aqil Mirza for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 70
Appellate Court had not discussed evidence while deciding the appeal of accused but had simply mentioned that it had considered arguments advanced and had perused the record and that accused were rightly convicted and sentenced
Judgment of Appellate Court being not in consonance with law, could not be sustained which was set aside and case was remanded for rehearing.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Aqil Mirza for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 6th March, 1991. Noor Elahi and Mahboob Elahi, petitioners, were tried under section 70 of the Canal and Drainage Act by Magistrate 1st Class, Mandi Bahaud Din, who convicted and sentenced them to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, vide his judgment dated 30-9-1985. The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, on 18-6-1986.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Sessions Judge has arbitrarily dismissed the appeal without applying his mind to the facts and evidence of the case.
3. No one has appeared for the State. I have considered the matter carefully. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the learned Sessions Judge has really not discussed the evidence and after setting out the facts, he simply stated that "I have considered the arguments advanced and have perused the record. I do not see any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced under section 70 of the Canal and Drainage Act. The case has been proved from the evidence of the P.Ws. This to my mind is not a valid judgment and cannot sustain.
4. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, for rehearing of the petitioner. Order accordingly. SA./N-444/L Case remanded.