1991 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL KARIM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL KARIM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL KARIM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- 2. Mr. Iftikhar Ali Sheikh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 439
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 304, Part II
Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of
Accused was charged and tried under S.302, P.P.C., but was convicted and sentenced under S.304, Part II, P.P.C. by Trial Court-- Complainant through revision had requested that conviction of accused under 5.304, Part II, P.P.C. be converted into conviction under S.302, P.P.C.
High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could not convert conviction in a minor offence to conviction in a major offence.
Judgment & Decree
S. 439
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 304, Part II
Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of
Accused was charged and tried under S.302, P.P.C., but was convicted and sentenced under S.304, Part II, P.P.C. by Trial Court-- Complainant through revision had requested that conviction of accused under 5.304, Part II, P.P.C. be converted into conviction under S.302, P.P.C.
High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could not convert conviction in a minor offence to conviction in a major offence. Nemo for Petitioner. Aziz Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1991. Muhammad Siddique, respondent, alongwith two others were tried under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. for the murder of Abdul Majid and injuries to Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Aslam and 'Muhammad Bashir. On the conclusion of the trial, Muhammad Siddique, respondent, was convicted under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. and sentenced to eight years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.3,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I. He has not filed any appeal against his conviction and sentence. However, Abdul Karim, complainant, has filed the present revision application against the acquittal of the charge under section 302, P.P.C.
2. Mr. Iftikhar Ali Sheikh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
3. I find that in this revision petition, it has been requested that the conviction of the respondent under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. may be converted into conviction under section 302, P.P.C. I am afraid that the High Court in exercise of the revisional powers cannot convert conviction in minor offence to conviction in major offence. The respondent was charged under section 302, P.P.C. However, he was convicted under section 302, Part II, P.P.C. which means that he was acquitted of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. So it is not possible for this Court to grant the prayer made in this revision application. Dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./A-1411/L Revision dismissed.