1990 PLP 256 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 256 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 256 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 256 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 256 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 15‑4‑1989, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1987). ‑‑‑S.304, Part II‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑No question of public importance had been raised‑‑‑Accused wanted to reappraise the evidence but Supreme Court declined to undertake the same in circumstances‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th June, 1989. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal arises from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 15‑4‑1989.
2. The petitioner was charged under section 302 P.P.C. for the murder of Ghulam Shah. He was tried by the Sessions Judge, Attock, who vide his order dated 26‑2‑1981, convicted him under section 304 Part II P.P.C, and sentenced him to seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to six months' further R.I. The fine on realization was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. The benefit of the provision of section 382‑B Cr.P.C. was also allowed to him. In the High Court, on appeal by the petitioner his conviction and sentence was maintained as per order dated 15‑4‑1989.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned orders. We, however, do not find any substance in the petition inasmuch as no question of law of public importance has been raised therein. All that the learned counsel for the petitioner wants is to reappraise the evidence which, in the circumstances of the case, we decline to undertake.
4. The petition is thus dismissed. M.A.K./M‑1066/S Petition dismissed.