1985 PLP 1212 (SCMR)
WARRIS ALI‑‑Appellant Versus NAZIR and 4 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1212 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | WARRIS ALI‑‑Appellant Versus NAZIR and 4 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1212 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1212 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1212 (SCMR) (WARRIS ALI‑‑Appellant Versus NAZIR and 4 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 11 February, 1985.
- Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑4‑1980, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1977). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.148 & 302/149‑‑Acquittal of petitioners challenged‑‑Contentions raised already considered and repelled by High Court in well‑reasoned judgment‑‑Not open to inter ference‑‑Leave refused. Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This petition by Waris Ali is directed against the acquittal of Nazir, Rehmat, Hassan and Allah Ditta, respondents 1 to 4 respectively.
2. The respondents were accused of the murder of Ashiq Ali deceased. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who vide his judgment dated 30‑6‑1976, acquitted all of them of the charge under sections 148 and 302/149, P.P.C. The State filed an appeal against their acquittal which was dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 26‑4‑1980. Hence the present petition. 3.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgments. We notice that all the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel before us were also raised before the Courts below but were repelled. Having considered these contentions and after going through the impugned judgments we feel that the well‑reasoned judgment recorded by the High Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, rejected as having no force. M. I. Petition dismissed.