| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1988 SLG 3059 1988 SLD 3059 1988 SCMR 338 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Review Petitions Nos. 4-R and 10-R of 1987, decided on 21st November, 1987. Date of hearing: 21st November, 1987. (On review - from the judgment and order, dated 17-3-1987 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1986).
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE, JAVID IQBAL, JUSTICE
Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzur Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in Cr. R. P. 10 of 1987). Abid Hassan Minto, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Aasim Jafari for Petitioners (in Cr. R . P . 4 of 1987) . Kh. Su
Criminal Review Petitions Nos. 4-R and 10-R of 1987, decided on 21st November, 1987. Date of hearing: 21st November, 1987. (On review - from the judgment and order, dated 17-3-1987 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1986).
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE, JAVID IQBAL, JUSTICE
Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzur Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in Cr. R. P. 10 of 1987). Abid Hassan Minto, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Aasim Jafari for Petitioners (in Cr. R . P . 4 of 1987) . Kh. Su
CHAUDHRI NAZIR AHMAD
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 188
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497,498
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- ---Art.188--Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.497 498--Review--Error of fact apparent on face of record--Bail, cancellation of though armed with a Danda, was treated at par with co-accused who was armed with a pistol and was found to have fired with intention of killings case having distinguishable features, review petition accepted, bail allowed to petitioner and appeal for cancellation of his bail dismissed. ORDER MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.- In Criminal Review Petition No.10-R of 1987, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken exception to the following sentence in a paragraph of the judgment at page 7. Yet the fact that on his Lalkara they brought out their own pistols (which they had brought with them to the High Court) and started firing indiscriminately, injuring four persons, coupled with the background of hostility between the parties indicates that they had fired with the intention to kill and not merely to injure or scare away the members of the other side. In so far as Criminal Review Petition No.4-R of 1987 is concerned, no exception could be taken as Abdul Kabir was armed with a pistol and fired at Saroosh Mirza, Munawar and Shakil Asghar and thus caused to them the bullet injuries at the Lalkara given by Akhlaq alias Guddoo. The case of Nazir Ahmad is different. It is pointed out that he was not armed with a pistol but a Danda was ascribed to him, and, therefore, he could not be said to have been armed with a pistol and to have caused the result as mentioned in the paragraph. There was, therefore, an error of fact on the face of the judgment and this resulted in an erroneous consideration of his case, and for that reason needs review as the contention has substance. We agree with the assessment of the High Court that bail allowed to Nazir Ahmad does not need to be cancelled. Here I would like to add that the counsel for the respondent in this petition conceded that the case of Nazir Ahmad has distinguishable features. Accordingly, we would amend this paragraph to read as under: Although it could be argued that the two respondents did not share the common…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492