1983 P Cr (PLP)
AHMED ALI AND 2 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | K. M. A. Samdani, J |
| Parties | AHMED ALI AND 2 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: K. M. A. Samdani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (AHMED ALI AND 2 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Sabir for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497 & 498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307, 148 & 149 - Bail - Eight Advocates who also appeared before Investigat ing Officer filing affidavits before High Court to plead innocence of petitioners as a result of their own investigations but none of them eye-witness - Such statements made on oath, held, carry no weight - Bail refused. Najamul Hassan for the State. Asghar Ali for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Najamul Hassan for the State. Asghar Ali for the Complainant. The petitioners' earlier bail application was rejected. The main ground on which the present bail application has been shoved is that several persons including 7 Advocates have appeared before the Investigating Officer and testified to the innocence of the petitioners. The relevant zimnis have been called for add perused. The zimnis Indicate that a large number of persons did appear before the Investigating Officer and jointly stated that only two out of the 8 person, accused in this case were responsible for the incident in question and the other accused including the petitioners were innocent. But since two persons have lost their lives and five others are said to have sustained injuries. It appears incredible that only two persons could have caused such extensive damage. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has today placed on record affidavits sworn by eight Advocates again testifying that the petitioners are innocent. According, to him, these advocates had also appeared before the Investigating Officer. But it should be noted that none of them claims to be an eye-witness. They have sworn affidavits only on the basis of the result of their own investigations. It is obvious that such statements, though made on oath, carry no weight in law. The petition is accordingly rejected. Petition rejected.