1995SCMR486 (PLP)
Mst. GHAFOORAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995SCMR486 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. GHAFOORAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR486 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR486 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Sajjad Ali Shah and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR486 (PLP) (Mst. GHAFOORAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Saeedul Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents/Caveat.
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 4‑12‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Crl. Revision No. 349/1985). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 468, 471 & 420‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Sessions Court had accepted the appeal of accused against their conviction by the Magistrate and their acquittal had been maintained by High Court in revision‑‑‑Sufficient evidence was available on the record on the basis of which conviction of accused was recorded by Trial Court‑‑‑High‑ Court had neither discussed the evidence nor had passed the speaking order‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 4‑12‑1993.
2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 were convicted by the M.I.C. Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, under sections 468, 471, P.P.C and sentenced to 2 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1000, in default of payment of fine 6 months' R.I. They were further convicted under section 420, P.P.C. and sentenced to 2 years' R.I. and Rs.500 as fine, in default thereof 2 months' R.I. Respondent No. 7, Mst. Sakina, was convicted under section 468/471 and sentenced to 2 years' S.I. with fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof 4 months' S.I. She was further convicted. under section 420, P.P.C. and sentenced to 2 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.500 and on default thereof to undergo 2 months' S.I. The respondents' appeal against their conviction was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, vide order dated 31‑10‑1984. The petitioner challenged the respondents' acquittal in the High Court, but the learned Judge in Chamber maintained the order. The High Court dismissed the revision petition for the following reasons:‑‑ "However, learned counsel for the petitioner having gone through the entire evidence could not dislodge the findings. Consequently the petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judge in Chamber has not discussed the evidence and has not passed a speaking order. There is sufficient evidence on the record on the basis of which the conviction of the respondents is recorded by the trial Court.