1989 PLP 1992 (SCMR)
WASAL AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1992 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | WASAL AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1992 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1992 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1992 (SCMR) (WASAL AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, f dated 29‑1‑1989 in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1978). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ ‑ ‑‑S.304‑A‑‑Constitution of Pak1stan (1973), Art. l85(3)‑‑Appreciation of ) evidence‑‑All the points raised in support of the petition amounted to a request for appreciation of evidence which was neither justified nor could be allowed in petition for leave to appeal procccdings‑‑Petition being without any merit was dismissed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.304‑A‑‑Sentence‑‑Seven persons died on the spot as a result of accident which had been proved to be due to rash and negligent act of driving the bus by the accused‑‑Lesser sentence than the maximum prescribed under S.304‑A, P.P.C., held, would not have even been justified in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner with a modification however that his conviction under section 304, Part‑1, Pak1stan Penal Code recorded by the trial Court was altered to one under section 304‑A of the Code and accordingly the sentence of 7 years' R.I. awarded to him was reduced to 4 years' R.I. which was the maximum, penalty for that offence at the relevant time. All the points raised in support of the petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner amount to a request for appreciation of evidence which is neither justified nor can be allowed in these proceedings. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition. Learned counsel however submitted that the maximum penalty under the law was not warranted but this plea has no force at all. In the case 7 persons died on the spot as a result of accident which has been proved to be due to rash and negligent act of driving the bus by the petitioner. Lesser sentence than the maximum prescribed under section 304‑A would not have even been justified in this case. The petition accordingly is dismissed. M.A.K./W‑64/S Petition dismissed.