1993 PLP 2055 (SCMR)
MUNIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2055 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ, Fazal Elahi Khan and |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2055 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2055 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ, Fazal Elahi Khan and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2055 (SCMR) (MUNIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MANZOOR and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MA.Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1993.
- Irshad Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 11‑11‑1992 passed in Cr. Revision No‑586 of 1991 and Cr. A. No.632 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185‑‑‑Petition for Leave to Appeal‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑High Court in ordering the acquittal of the accused was not shown to have ignored any vital piece of evidence or misapplied any established principle of law or acted contrary to any other rule resulting in a miscarriage of justice‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Irshad Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ.‑‑‑By this petition, the order of the High Court acquitting the 7 respondents, who had earlier been convicted by the learned trial Court has been questioned. We have heard Mr. MA. Zafar in support of this petition. He has not been able to show that in ordering the acquittal of the respondents the High Court has ignored any vital piece of evidence or misapplied any established principle of law or acted contrary to any other rule which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1795/S Petition dismissed.