P L D 1992 Supreme Court 253 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HASHIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1992 Supreme Court 253 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Mtihanunad Ajzal Zullah, CJ. |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HASHIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1992 Supreme Court 253 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1992 Supreme Court 253 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Mtihanunad Ajzal Zullah, CJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1992 Supreme Court 253 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HASHIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13-E
Penal Code (XLV of 186(1), 5.307
Accused was alleged to have fired a pistol at his adversary and weapon was recovered from him and he was arraigned for separate trials for separate offences i.e. one for attempted murder and the other for having kept the illicit arm without licence
Trial for offence under S.307, P.P.C. had not yet concluded
Held. if accused was acquitted in trial under S.307, P.P.C. despite the corroboratory evidence regarding recovery of the weapon of offence, that would not be a conflict of judgments, as a result of two trials relating to the same occurrence in circumstances.--(Criminal trial).
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.
In this petition for leave to appeal the petitioner's conviction under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance and somewhat heavy punishment thereunder, the plea raised is that it was allegedly a composite offence. The petitioner was alleged to have fired a pistol at his adversary. The weapon was recovered from him and he was arraigned for separate trials for separate offences--one for attempted murder and the other for having kept the illicit arm without licence. The learned counsel has contended that the other trial for offence under section 307 PPC has not yet concluded and if the petitioner is acquitted therein despite the corroboratory evidence regarding recovery of the weapon of offence, this would end in conflict of judgments as a result of the two trials relating to the same occurrence. This view was not upheld by the Privy Council in cases coming from various colonies including one from Malaysia. The superior Courts of Pakistan also have not accepted this view. For example in slightly different circumstances, see Muhammad v. Hammad Raza, C.S.P. Commissioner, Sargodha Division PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lah.
692. Accordingly, there is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal, is refused. M.BA./M-1606/S Leave refused.