1985 PLP 1781 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RASHID — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1781 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RASHID — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1781 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1781 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1781 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RASHID — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IRFAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Jafar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Rana Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with K.E. Bhatti, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 29th June, 1985.
- Muhammad Jafar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Nawaz Abbasi, A.A.‑G. with Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
- Rana Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with K.E. Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 25-3-1985, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1985).
Art. 185(3)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 426--Leave to appeal sought against suspension of death sentence and release of accused on bail--No case made out for interference with order passed by High Court in exercise of its discretionary powers--Petition dismissed. M. Nawaz Abbasi, A.A.-G. with Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H QURAISHI, J.
The petitioner who is complaint in the case, is aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court, whereby, on an application made under section 426, Cr.P.C., the sentence of death passed by the trial Court under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C., against Muhammad Irfan, one of the two convicts in the case, was suspended and he was admitted to bail.
2. The firearm injuries resulting in the death of the deceased had been attributed to the co‑convict and not to Muhammad Irfan. The reason for holding him vicariously liable for the murder as given by the trial Court was: "It is in evidence of Muhammad Rashid and Muhammad Aslam P.Ws that he came to the spot in Suzuki alongwith his co‑accused. This shows that he had an intention common with his co‑accused. On getting down from it there he immediately came to the deceased and gave him slaps and also raised Lalkara addressing him that they would teach him a lesson for having had given beating to his co‑accused." From this, the learned trial Court concluded: "By so doing he instigated his co‑accused who fired at the deceased. He is, therefore, equally liable for the act done by him in view of section 114, P.P.C." It is in this background that the impugned order was passed.
3. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order passed inn the exercise of discretionary power. The petition is dismissed. M . I . Petition dismissed.