1990 PLP 495 (SCMR)
UMER HAYAT and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 495 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | UMER HAYAT and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 495 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 495 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 495 (SCMR) (UMER HAYAT and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 24th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 11‑4‑1989 in Criminal Appeal No.666 of 1986). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.392‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Reappraisal of evidence‑‑ Contentions were raised that Trial Court had wrongly relied upon the recoveries; accused had been falsely implicated and evidence led by prosecution did not prove the case against accused beyond doubt‑‑‑Such contentions related to the appreciation of evidence which had been done by two Courts below‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to reappraise evidence in circumstances‑‑‑Petition dismissed. (b) Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance (II of 1987)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act (XV of 1987), Preamble‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.392‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Contention raised that on coming into force of Act (XV of 1987), Ordinance (II of 1987), under which Trial Court had jurisdiction to try case stood repealed, hence, trial as well as conviction were illegal‑‑‑High Court had dealt with such contention in accordance with law and repelled the same‑‑‑Even otherwise S.15 of Ordinance, 1987 saved previous proceedings and judgment of Trial Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act (XV of 1987), Preamble‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.392‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Contention raised that on coming into force of Act (XV of 1987), Ordinance (II of 1987), under which Trial Court had jurisdiction to try case stood repealed, hence, trial as well as conviction were illegal‑‑‑High Court had dealt with such contention in accordance with law and repelled the same‑‑‑Even otherwise S.15 of Ordinance, 1987 saved previous proceedings and judgment of Trial Court. Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 24th June, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court by judgment dated 11‑4‑1989 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners against their conviction and sentence recorded by the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials, Gujranwala, under section 392, P.P.C. The only change made by the High Court was that section 34, P.P.C. was added which appeared to have been omitted by the trial Court at the time of trial. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition raised three points‑‑first that the trial Court wrongly relied upon the recovery of motorcycle and gun; second that the petitioners had been falsely implicated, they were innocent, the evidence led by the prosecution did not prove the case beyond doubt. Finally, that on coming into force of Act XV of 1987, the Ordinance under which the trial Court had the jurisdiction to try stood repealed, hence the trial as well as conviction was illegal. The first two points concern the appreciation of the evidence. It has been done by the two Courts below and, therefore, we are not prepared to re‑appraise the evidence. Even the, third point has no force because we find that the High Court dealt with it in accordance with law and did not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel before the High Court. Even, otherwise section 15 of Ordinance II of 1987 saves the previous proceedings and judgment of the trial Court. Hence, we don't find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. M.A.K./U‑28/S Petition dismissed.