1989SCMR677 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD JAVED Petitioner Versus ASGHAR ALI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR677 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Usman Ali Shah and Naim uddin, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAVED Petitioner Versus ASGHAR ALI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR677 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR677 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Usman Ali Shah and Naim uddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR677 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD JAVED Petitioner Versus ASGHAR ALI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14thNovember, 1988.
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25-6-1985 passed in Criminal Revision No.193 of 1985).
S.308--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--High Court exercised jurisdiction possessed by it and no provision or principle of law had been violated--Matter was one of discretion relatable to facts and circumstances of case--Case being not fit for grant of leave to appeal, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.308‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑High Court exercised jurisdiction possessed by it and no provision or principle of law had been violated‑‑Matter was one of discretion relatable to facts and circumstances of case‑‑Case being not fit for grant of leave to appeal, petition was dismissed. Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14thNovember, 1988. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, a complainant in a case registered under section 308, P.P.C. against the respondent on 12th of March, 1982 vide F.I.R. No.25 Police Station City Raiwind, Lahore, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 25th of June, 1985 accepting a Criminal Revision Petition of the respondent and reducing his sentence on conviction under section 308, P.P.C. from three years to that already undergone by then and imposing a fine of Rs.500 which was to be paid as compensation to the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed only the reduction in the sentence and the award of compensation of Rs.5pp which was in the circumstances considered by the petitioner to be paltry. In this context the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the gravity of the injury caused en the left parietal region by an iron bar.
3. The two reasons given by the learned Judge in the High Court while exercising the discretion in the matter of sentence were that the respondent was of a tender age, 16/17 years, at the time of the occurrence, and that the circumstances of the case justified it. The record does not give anywhere the approximate age of the respondent and the Court noted that there had been a failure on the part of the trial Court to have omitted to bring it on record. In the absence of anything to the contrary, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent appearing in the High Court was taken to be correct and made the basis for the reduction in the sentence. The other reason relates to the facts of the case which need not be gone into.
4. We find that the High Court has exercised the jurisdiction possessed by it and no provision or principle of law has been violated. It was a matter of discretion relatable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal which is hereby refused. M.A.K./M‑706/5 Leave refused.