1986 PLP 1091 (SCMR)
RUSTAM KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1091 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/468--Leave to appeal grant of--Reappraisal of evidence--Conviction of petitioners under 5.420/468, P.P.C. mainly based on report of finger-print expert who was not examined by trial Court--Petitioners having been deprived of opportunity to cross-examine such expert, leave to appeal granted to reappraise evidence in circumstances of case.--Evidence. |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | RUSTAM KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1091 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1091 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/468--Leave to appeal grant of--Reappraisal of evidence--Conviction of petitioners under 5.420/468, P.P.C. mainly based on report of finger-print expert who was not examined by trial Court--Petitioners having been deprived of opportunity to cross-examine such expert, leave to appeal granted to reappraise evidence in circumstances of case.--Evidence. bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1091 (SCMR) (RUSTAM KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioners alongwith one Muhammad Ilyas` (since acquitted by the trial Court) were tried for having allegedly forged and got registered a sale‑deed, dated 20‑2‑1975 purportedly executed by the complainant Shamsuddin son of Qamru and his brother Muhammad Ilyas son of Haji Khawasi Khan. On trial the learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty and convicted them of the offence under sections 420/468 and 471, P.P.C. while Muhammad Ilyas Khan was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. The petitioners filed an appeal against their co nviction which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur and their revision petition to the Lahore High Court was also dismissed as per impugned judgment, dated 23‑2‑1985. 2. It was contended, inter alia, by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the conviction was mainly based on the report of the finger‑print expert who was not examined by the trial Court and the petitioners were thus given no opportunity of cross‑examining him. 3. The re‑appraisal of evidence in the circumstances of the case seems necessary. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. M.I. Leave granted.