1997 SCMR 1138 (PLP)
SHAHID MAQBOOL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 SCMR 1138 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHID MAQBOOL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 SCMR 1138 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 SCMR 1138 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 SCMR 1138 (PLP) (SHAHID MAQBOOL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 8‑11‑1993 passed in MR 118/91). ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions that the accused had filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence by Trial Court before the High Court which was not processed by the office and on the contrary High Court had made an observation in its judgment that the accused had failed to prefer appeal against his conviction, which resulted in miscarriage of justice and the accused was condemned unheard before the High Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 8‑11‑1993 passed in MR 118/91). ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions that the accused had filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence by Trial Court before the High Court which was not processed by the office and on the contrary High Court had made an observation in its judgment that the accused had failed to prefer appeal against his conviction, which resulted in miscarriage of justice and the accused was condemned unheard before the High Court. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1995. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑Leave is granted in the above case to consider whether in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence by trial Court before the High Court which was not processed by the office and on the contrary in the impugned judgment an observation was made that the petitioner had failed to prefer appeal against his conviction which resulted in miscarriage of justice and petitioner was condemned unheard before the High Court. Criminal Petitions Nos. 10 and 11 of 1994 will also be considered along with the above appeal. N.H.Q./S‑964/S Leave granted.