1989 PLP 1944 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM SAFDAR and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1944 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM SAFDAR and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1944 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1944 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1944 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM SAFDAR and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- M.B. Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l and 2.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 1989.
- Rao Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13‑4‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore m Cr. A. No. 144/81 & Cr.A. No.108 of 1981 & Murder Ref. No.169/81) ‑‑‑S.302‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Acquittal‑‑Two views of the matter were possible and the view taken by the High Court was possible‑‑Order of acquittal, held, could not be set aside in circumstances. Rao Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 13‑4‑1986 acquitting Ghulam Safdar, respondent No.1, who stood convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock dated 19‑7‑1981. Mr.M.Bilal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has taken us through the evidence and contended that the learned Judges in the High Court were not justified in setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court and their order is erroneous. Mr.M.B.Zaman, learned counsel for the respondents, has been heard in reply. We feel that two views of the matter were indeed possible and the view taken by the High Court was a possible one. An order of acquittal cannot be set aside, in such circumstances. This petition for leave to appeal must, therefore, fail. It is dismissed accordingly. M.A .K/M‑1001/S Petition dismissed