1989 PLP 1381 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1381 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Glulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1381 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1381 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Glulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1381 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Sajjad Raza Jaffry. Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 10‑4‑1988 in Cr. A. 557 of 1986). (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ ‑‑‑S.5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973).Art.185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.326/149 & 148‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Petition barred by 44 days Not mentioned in the application as to how and when did the petitioners come to know of the impugned judgment‑‑Petition merited dismissal on ground of limitation alone nevertheless counsel allowed to argue the case on merits. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ ‑‑‑S.326/149/148‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑High Court took all the relevant facts into consideration, the weapon used, number of injuries, quantum of sentence and legal and factual aspects of the case‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Jafar and Muhammad Bashir seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 10‑4‑1988. The High Court by means of the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the petitioners to one year R.I. each under section 148, P.P.C. and five years' R.I. each under section 326/149, P.P.C. and a fine of Rs.5,000 each. There by setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court dated 24‑3‑1986. The incident in which the petitioners are alleged to have been involved took place on 26‑3‑1980 at Mauza Bhaini Nau within the area of Police Station. Snaraqpur. Report was lodged by Muhammad Tufail. The petitioners were tried by Magistrate Section 30, Ferozewala. All of them were acquitted by the trial Court by judgment dated 24‑3‑1986. This petition is barred by fifty‑four days. The reason given in the application for condonation of delay was that the arguments were heard by the High Court on 8th, 14th and 15th of December, 1987 and the judgment was announced on 10‑4‑1988 in the absence of the petitioners. Paragraph 3 of the application reads as under:‑ "That the petitioners learnt about the pronouncement of the impugned judgment of High Court somewhere in the third week of May, 1988, whereupon they applied for the certified copies of documents which were made available to them on 29‑5‑1988." It is not mentioned as to how and when did the petitioners come to know of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel was unable to give any explanation at A the Bar. Hence this petition merits dismissal on this short ground alone. Nevertheless we allowed the counsel to argue the case on merits. Even on merits, the petitioners have no case because the judgment of acquittal was set aside by the High Court. "After carefully examining the entire evidence I am of the firm view that the reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the evidence of Muhammad Tufail. Muhammad Hussain and Mst. Zubeda P.Ws. are absolutely baseless". The High Court took all the relevant facts into consideration the weapon used, number of injuries and the quantum of sentence. It is thus obvious that the B High Court considered all the legal and factual aspects of the case. Hence no interference is called for. Leave is refused. M.A.K./M‑867/S Leave refused.