1987 PLP 1423 (SCMR)
ASGHAR ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHARAT and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1423 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ASGHAR ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHARAT and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1423 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1423 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1423 (SCMR) (ASGHAR ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHARAT and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M.B. Zaman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1987.
- M. Rafiq Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7th October, 1980 in Criminal Appeal No.108 of 1980/Criminal Revision No.162 of 1980). ‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition against acquittal‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with view taken by High Court as reason given for acquitting accused were correct‑ Leave to appeal refused. M. Rafiq Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Asghar Ali petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 7th October, 1980, acquitting the four respondents of the charge under section 302/34, PPC. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judges of the High Court as the reasons given for acquitting the respondents in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the impugned judgment are correct. We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M.I. /A‑52/S Petition dismissed.