1968 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM HAIDER AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J |
| Parties | GHULAM HAIDER AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM HAIDER AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Almas Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 323‑One of defence witnesses admitting that incident of assault and injury on complainant in fact occurred‑No reason assigned as to why case should be re examined in any respect‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.‑The prosecution case on which the three petitioners stand convicted has been accepted by three Courts below, after proper scrutiny of the evidence in the first two Courts. The revision in the High Court was summarily rejected. Leave is sought to appeal further. The offence charged was that of causing hurt to Ali Muhammad, an acting lambardar, when he went to the petitioners to collect the land revenue due from them. It has been held proved on the evidence of Ali Muhammad, P. W. 1, Ghulam Qadir P. W. 2 and Allah Bakhsh, P. W.4 together with the police report and the proof of injuries. The defence plea was that the whole case was false. A number of witnesses were produced to support, but one of them admitted that the incident of assaust and injury had in fact occurred. Mr. Almas Ali is unable to adduce any reason why the case should be re‑examined in any respect. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.