P (PLP)
GUL AMIR KHAN‑ — Appellant‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑ — Respondent (From Lahore)
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Rashid, C. ,J., A. Rahman and A. S. M. Akram, J |
| Parties | GUL AMIR KHAN‑ — Appellant‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑ — Respondent (From Lahore) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Rashid, C. ,J., A. Rahman and A. S. M. Akram, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (GUL AMIR KHAN‑ — Appellant‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑ — Respondent (From Lahore)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Mohsin Shah, Senior Advocate, Federal Court (with him Allah, Din Malik, Advocate, Federal Court), for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Federal Court‑--Interference with criminal sentence‑When justified‑"Something so irregular or so outrageous as to shock very basis of justice"‑Question whether right of private defence accrued to accused, one for final determination by Court of Criminal Appeal. The Federal Court exercises the same powers in respect of criminal maters as were exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before the 1st of May, 1950. The Federal Court is not a Court of Criminal Appeal and in order to justify their interference with a criminal sentence there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to shock the very basis of justice. Dillet's Case : 12 App. Cas. 459 ; Mohinder Singh and another v. The King Emperor ; L R 59 I. A. 233 ref. Whether a right of private defence had accrued to the petitioner and his companions was a point for filial determination by a Court of Criminal Appeal. Crown not represented.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL RASHID, C. J.-- This is a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court .from a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore confirming the sentence of death imposed on Gul Amir Khan, petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Campbellpnr. Under the Privy Council (Abolition of Jurisdiction) Act, 1950, this Court exercises the same powers in respect of criminal matters as were exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, before the 1st of May, 1950. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the judicial Committee of the Privy Council that they do not sit as a Court of Criminal Appeal. In order to justify their interference with a criminal sentence, there must be something so irregular or so outrageous as to shock the very basis of justice. Such an instance was found in Dillet's Case which has always been held to be the leading authority on such matters. Reference may be made in this connection to the case of Mohindar Singh and another v. The King Emperor L. R. 59 I. A.
233. The only point urged by Mr. Mohsin Shah was that the petitioner and his companions were justified in firing on the complainants in the exercise of their right of private defence. On appeal, the learned judges of the High Court, after a consideration of the entire evidence on record, have given a finding that no right of private defence .had accrued to the petitioner and his companions. This was a point for final determination by a Court of Criminal Appeal. In the present case, there has been no disregard of the forms of legal process and no violation of the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, dismiss this petition. A.H. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed. Attorney for Petitioner:
‑Shamim Hussain Qadari.