1968 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL MAJID‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle‑Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID‑Petitioner 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: Fazle‑Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL MAJID‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Mesawa, Attorney for Petitioner
- Date of hearing: 16th February 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 9th October 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1966). Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S. 393‑Conviction for attempted robbery‑Re‑examinations of evidence found necessary‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 9th October 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1966). Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S. 393‑Conviction for attempted robbery‑Re‑examinations of evidence found necessary‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Mesawa, Attorney for Petitioner Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 16th February 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑‑It is pointed out that the evidence on the point of attempted robbery is misrepresented in the order of the High Court. We have seen the evidence of Ramzan in which he categorically stated that the petitioner asked him and his other companions to get up and thereafter there was noise and the petitioner ran away. It appears necessary in the interest of safe administra tion of justice to re‑examine evidence in the case. Leave to appeal 'is granted. Bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.