Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: UMER HAYAT and another VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Naimuddin, Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza Title: UMER HAYAT and another vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Petition No,125 of 1989 Date of Judgment:1989-06-24 Reported As: 1990 SCMR 495 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court by judgment dated 11-4-1989 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners against their conviction and sentence recorded by the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials, Gujranwala, under section 392, P.P.C. The only change made by the High Court was that section 34, P.P.C. Was added which appeared to have been omitted by the trial Court at the time of trial. ' Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition raised three points--first that the trial Court wrongly relied upon the recovery of motorcycle and gun; second that the petitioners had been falsely implicated, they were innocent, the evidence led by the prosecution did not prove the case beyond doubt. Finally, that on coming into force of Act XV of 1987, the Ordinance under which the trial Court had the jurisdiction to try stood repealed, hence the trial as well as conviction was illegal. The first two points concern the appreciation of the evidence. It has been done by the two Courts below and, therefore, we are not prepared to re-appraise the evidence. ' Even the third point has no force because we find that the High Court dealt with it in accordance with law and did not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel before the High Court. Even, otherwise section 15 of Ordinance II of 1987 saves the previous proceedings and judgment of the trial Court. ' Hence, we don't find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.