1972 PLP 273 (SCMR)
JALAL alias JALLA AND 4 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑.Respondent
| Citation | 1972 PLP 273 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JALAL alias JALLA AND 4 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑.Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 273 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 273 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 273 (SCMR) (JALAL alias JALLA AND 4 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑.Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 15th May 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 31st January 1972, in Criminal Revision No. 854 of 1964). Interim Constitution of Pakistan (1972), Art. 184(3)‑Constitu tion of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)‑Evidence duly appraised by Court below and rightly accepted‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in revisional jurisdiction, whereby their convictions under section 325/149, P. P. C. with a sentence of one year R. I. and a fine of Rs.50 or, in default, three months' R. I., have been upheld. They were also found guilty by the trial Magistrate and the appellate Court under section.148, P. P. C. However, the learned Single Judge in the High Court has set aside their conviction on this count for the reason that it was not proved that the petitioners were armed with deadly weapons, failing to take note of the fact that if the charge under section 148 failed on the ground mentioned by him, the petitioners could not escape their liability under section 147, P. P. C. on the basis of the learned Judge's own finding that the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly and were guilty of rioting, although not armed with deadly weapons. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before us that the prosecution evidence is of an interested nature, and it is not safe to place reliance on it. We consider that the evi4ence has been duly appraised by the Courts below, and has been rightly accepted in proof of the petitioners' guilt. No interference is called for by this Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.