1990 PLP 1574 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1574 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Javid Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1574 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1574 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Javid Iqbal and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1574 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahud Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 26th April, 1989 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1282‑B of 1989). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 10, 11, 16 & 19‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑ High Court having rightly rejected arguments raised by petitioner, no case thus had been made out for interference in the discretion exercised by High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 26th April, 1989 whereby bail application of the petitioner was dismissed. A case is registered against the petitioner under sections 10, 11, 16 and 19 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. The allegation is that he committed the offence of Zina‑bil‑Jabr on Mst. Shamshad Begum. There were three co‑accused against whom the allegation was for having stood as guards and they were allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. However, the petitioner was refused bail not only by the Additional Sessions Judge but also by the High Court. Learned counsel contends that the F.I.R. was at variance with the statement of Mst. Shamshad Begum dated 21st February, 1989, that according to the medical evidence she had been used to sexual intercourse, that the petitioner had contracted marriage with her vide Nikah and that she had made an affidavit to the effect that she had voluntarily come with the petitioner and married him. All these arguments had been raised before the learned Single Judge as is evident from para. 4 of the impugned order of the High Court, but these had been rightly rejected. No case is made out for interference in the discretion exercised by the learned Judge of the High Court in this case. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1417/S Petition dismissed.