2008 PLP 1506 (SCMR)
AHMED KHAN alias MALANGI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1506 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Shakirullah Jan and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | AHMED KHAN alias MALANGI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1506 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1506 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Shakirullah Jan and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1506 (SCMR) (AHMED KHAN alias MALANGI and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 23-4-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Criminal Appeal No.138/T of 2002).
S. 7
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.22
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Delay in examination of crime-empties by Forensic Science Laboratory
Contention of accused was that they had not been charged in F.I.R. and evidence against them was that of identification parade held after about a month of their arrest
Accused further contended that though there was positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding empties recovered from the spot and weapons recovered from them after their arrest but there was sufficient delay of examination of the recoveries in the Laboratory
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to reappraise the evidence. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. He contends that the petitioners have not been charged in the F.I.R. and the evidence available against them is that of identification parade held after about a, month of their arrest. He further states that though there is positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the empties recovered from the spot and the weapons recovered from the accused after their arrest but there is sufficient delay of the examination in the Laboratory of the aforesaid recoveries.
2. The evidence requires reappraisal, therefore, leave to appeal is accordingly granted. M.H./A-191/SC Leave granted.