1970 PLP 482 (SCMR)
ATA MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 PLP 482 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ATA MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 482 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 482 (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: 1970 PLP 482 (SCMR) (ATA MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Fazal-i-Azam Hamdani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 7th April 1970.
- Fazal‑i‑Azam Hamdani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of review of the judgment and order of this Court dated the 12th November 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1969). Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI, r. 1-Review-No error much less any error apparent on face of record disclosed in judgment-Petition for review of judgment dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This petition seeks a review of the judgment of this Court dated the 12th of November 1969, made in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1969, whereby the appeal of the petitioners against their convictions and sentences of death as affirmed by the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, for the murder of one, Allah Dita, was dismissed. The petition is merely an effort to re‑canvass some points arising in the evidence led in the case which were duly considered and determined. No error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record, is disclosed in the impugned judgment, as required by rule 1, Order XXVI of this Court's Rules as amended, for purposes of review. There is no substance in this review petition which is dismissed. Application dismissed