1984 PLP 1255 (MLD)
ALLAH YAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1255 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ALLAH YAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1255 (MLD)?
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 1984 PLP 1255 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1255 (MLD) (ALLAH YAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasim Sabir for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th November, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 325/34 & 323--Radiologist not produced to prove X-ray report or nature of injury Conviction under S. 325, P.P.C. held, had to be altered to one under S. 323, P.P.C.
Ss. 325/`34 & 323--Sentence--Accused old man of 55 years--Previous non-convict--Sentence of six months' R.I. reduced to three months' R.I. M. Naeem for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Ss. 325/`34 & 323--Sentence--Accused old man of 55 years--Previous non-convict--Sentence of six months' R.I. reduced to three months' R.I. Nasim Sabir for Petitioner. M. Naeem for the State. Date of hearing: 11th November, 1984. Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Allah Yar petitioner alongwith Altaf Hussain were tried by Magistrate First Class, Rabwah who convicted them under section 325/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to one year's R.I. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang partly accepted the appeal. He acquitted Altaf Hussain co-accused of the charge but maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel has not challenged the liability of the petitioner of having caused injury to the victim. He has challenged the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that since the Radiologist was not examined, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner under section 325, P.P.C. is not maintained. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am of the view that since Radiologist was not produced in the Court to prove the X-ray, the conviction of the petitioner under section 325 ,P. P. C . has to be altered to one under section 323, P.P.C.
4. This brings me to the question of sentence. I find that the petitioner is an old man of 55 years and that he is not a previous convict. The sentence of six months R.1. is reduced to three months' R. I. S.A. Conviction altered.