SCMR 1968

1968 PLP (1) (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD LATIF-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAI N AND OTHERS-Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
In re: Criminal Appeal No, 39 of 1967, decided on 27th November 1967,
Honorable Judges
A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1968 PLP (1) (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD LATIF-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAI N AND OTHERS-Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP (1) (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP (1) (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, 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 PLP (1) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD LATIF-Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAI N AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Raja Said Akbar, Advocate-General West Pakistan instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondent.
  • A. R. CORNELIUS, C. J.-For appellant, a plea is made for withdrawal on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The Advocate-General opposes the application, pointing out that the case is one of murder, which is non-compoundable. The Court being seized of the matter must now proceed to determine whether an offence has been committed. The application is refused.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree

A. R. CORNELIUS, C. J.-For appellant, a plea is made for withdrawal on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The Advocate-General opposes the application, pointing out that the case is one of murder, which is non-compoundable. The Court being seized of the matter must now proceed to determine whether an offence has been committed. The application is refused.