1968 P Cr (PLP)
MASEEL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DR. JAMIL AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER- — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | MASEEL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DR. JAMIL AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER- — Respondents |
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: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (MASEEL AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DR. JAMIL AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER- — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th March 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 7th November in Criminal Revision No. 252 of 1.963). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 315-Acquittal-High Court in revision against acquittal setting aside order of Magistrate and directing re-trial-Question whether High Court in circumstance had acted on sound principles in selling aside acquittal-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.
439. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 315-Acquittal-High Court in revision against acquittal setting aside order of Magistrate and directing re-trial-Question whether High Court in circumstance had acted on sound principles in selling aside acquittal-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.
439. Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th March 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner was acquitted by the trial Magistrate of a charge under section 325, P. P;. C. brought against him by his brother respondent No.
1. The latter moved the High Court in revisional jurisdiction on which a learned Single Judge has set aside the acquittal and directed re-trial on the view that the treatment of the evidence by the trial Magistrate was perverse and biased. On hearing the petitioner in person and examining the record we are prima facie not inclined to agree with the view which has prevailed in the High Court. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted to consider whether the High Court has acted on sound principles in setting aside the acquittal of the petitioner and directing a re-trial, Further proceedings shall in the meantime remain stayed. Leave granted.