Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Petition No. 38‑K of 1986, decided on 25th August, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 3‑4‑1986 passed in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1986).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Sind Children Act (XIV of 1955), S.5‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Age of accused in dispute‑‑Contention raised on behalf of accused that in view of conflicting opinion about age of accused, opinion favouring accused with regard to his minority was liable to be accepted and his revision application should have been allowed by High Court‑‑Contention requiring examination‑‑Leave granted.
Azizullah K. Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Dastagir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing. 25th August, 1986.
The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (West), Karachi under section 302/34, P.P.C. along with co‑accused Ali Muhammad and Muhammad Akram for the alleged murder of one Rasool Bux. The petitioner moved an application in the Court under section 5 of the Sind Children Act, 1955 praying that since at the time of the commission of the offence he was below 16 years of age, his case may be separated from the co‑accused under section 10 of the Act and tried accordingly. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 28‑10‑1985. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court through a Criminal Revision Application which has been dismissed as per impugned judgment, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to a certificate issued by the Police Surgeon, dated 19‑7‑1984 showing the age of the petitioner as between 15/16 years. However, according to the certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent he was .found to be aged about 18 years. The petitioner was also examined by the Medical Board and his age was determined to be 18 years 'as nearly as could be ascertained'.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the above conflicting opinions about the age of the petitioner, the opinion favouring the petitioner with regard to his minority was liable to be accepted and the petitioner's revision application should have been allowed by the High Court.
4. The above contention needs examination and leave to appeal is accordingly granted.
M. Y. H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer