1989SCMR1823 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ALI Petitioner Versus YOUSUF and another Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1823 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Adam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI Petitioner Versus YOUSUF and another Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1823 (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 1989SCMR1823 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Adam Riaz Hussain, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1823 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ALI Petitioner Versus YOUSUF and another Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ncmo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th.lanuary, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 21‑ 10 ‑1987 in Crl. Misc. Application No. 1819/86). ‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Quashing of proceedings by High Court‑‑Leave to appeal against order of the High Court was refused as petitioner could not point out any defect in the impugned judgment, nor did he raise any question of law requiring decision by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, .J.‑‑The petition is barred by 36 days. After hearing petitioner's counsel we condone the delay and proceed to hear the petition on merits.
2. Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 21‑10‑1987 allowing the respondents' criminal miscellaneous application for quashing the proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. initiated against the respondents. We have gone through the impugned judgment and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He has not been able to point out any defect in the impugned judgment. Nor has he raised any question of law requiring decision by this Court. We do not, therefore, consider it a fit case for grant of leave, which is consequently refused. A.A./M‑980/S Leave refused.