SCMR 1991

1991 PLP 1894 (SCMR)

MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus TALIB HUSSAIN and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petitions Nos.272, 273 and Judicial Petition No.57-R of 1988, decided on 21st January, 1990.
Honorable Judges
Nasim Hasan Shah, S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1991 PLP 1894 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Nasim Hasan Shah, S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ
Parties MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus TALIB HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
Primary Law (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1894 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1894 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1894 (SCMR) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus TALIB HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Representation

  • Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both the petitions).
  • Date of hearing: 21st January, 1990.
  • Ch. Ghulam Hasan Gulshan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both the petitions).
  • S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the judgment dated 6-7-88 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Cr.Appeals Nos.445 of 1985 & Cr.Revision No.573 of 1985)

S. 302

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)

Supreme Court Rules 1980, O.III R.1

Delay in filing petition, condonation of

Petitions directed against order of acquittal of respondents and for enhancement of sentence of one of respondents, were barred by 31 days

No reasonable grounds existing for condonation of delay in filing petitions

Petitions were dismissed.

S. 302-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence

Petitioner sentenced to life imprisonment under S.302 P.P.C. had challenged his conviction and sentence

Conviction recorded by High Court not only was fully justified, but High Court by imposing lesser sentence had already dealt with case of petitioner quite leniently

No ground for interference existed

Petition dismissed. S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Cr Ps. Nos 272 & 273 of 1988 NASIM HASAN SHAH, J: ‑‑This order will dispose of the above two petitions as they are interconnected. Both these petitions are directed against the order of acquittal, passed by the High Court, of Abid Hussain, Riaz Hussain and Mst. Halima wife of Talib Hussain (respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein) and for enhancement in the sentence of Talib Hussain to death, who was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. but sentenced to life imprisonment. Both these petitions are barred by 31 days. We have carefully perused the petition for condonation of delay and find that no reasonable grounds exist for condonation of delay which may induce us to entertain these petitions which seek reversal of an order of acquittal and enhancement in the matter of sentence. These petitions, accordingly, must fail and are dismissed hereby. The petitioner stands convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has challenged his conviction and sentence through this petition filed from Jail. We have perused the judgment of the High Court as also the grounds of appeal submitted by the petitioner through Jail in support of his appeal. We consider that the conviction recorded by the High Court is not only fully justified but feel that the High Court by imposing the lesser sentence has already dealt with the case of the petitioner quite leniently. No ground for interference, therefore, exists. This jail petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1232/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.