1994 PLP 1962 (SCMR)
EHSAN AHMED and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1962 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. |
| Parties | EHSAN AHMED and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1962 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1962 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1962 (SCMR) (EHSAN AHMED and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions.
- Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 7th October, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 27‑7‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in W.P. No. 1003 of 1991 and W.P. No.87 of 1991). ' ‑‑‑‑S. 439‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Point raised in petition for leave to appeal was that Sessions Court had no power under S.439‑A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, as a revisional Court to set aside conviction and remand case for retrial‑‑‑Question raised in the petition for leave to appeal already stood resolved by Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman Bajwa's case (PLD 1981 SC 522) and verdict therein was against the question raised by petitioners‑‑‑Petitioners' counsel admitted before Supreme Court that he had filed the petition for leave to appeal hesitatingly on the insistence of petitioners, otherwise he was doubtful about the proposition canvassed therein‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 522 rel.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 439‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Point raised in petition for leave to appeal was that Sessions Court had no power under S.439‑A, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, as a revisional Court to set aside conviction and remand case for retrial‑‑‑Question raised in the petition for leave to appeal already stood resolved by Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman Bajwa's case (PLD 1981 SC 522) and verdict therein was against the question raised by petitioners‑‑‑Petitioners' counsel admitted before Supreme Court that he had filed the petition for leave to appeal hesitatingly on the insistence of petitioners, otherwise he was doubtful about the proposition canvassed therein‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 522 rel. Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions. Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions). Date of hearing: 7th October, 1992. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the accused in a criminal case against the dismissal by the High Court of their Writ Petitions. The point raised is very simple namely, that a Sessions Court, as asserted, has no power under section 439‑A of the Criminal Procedure Code as a revisional Court to set aside a conviction and remand the case for re‑trial. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel that the question raised by him already stands resolved by this Court in Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 SC 522) and the verdict therein goes against the petitioners; learned counsel frankly stated that he had filed this petition only hesitatingly on the insistence of the petitioners; otherwise he was doubtful about the proposition canvassed therein. Thus he could not press the petitions any further. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. A.A./E‑42/S Leave refused.