1987 PLP 850 (SCMR)
MAHMOOD allias MOONDA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 850 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., |
| Parties | MAHMOOD allias MOONDA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 850 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 850 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J.,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 850 (SCMR) (MAHMOOD allias MOONDA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art.188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1‑‑Criminal appeal‑‑Review‑‑ Fresh grounds‑‑Mitigation of sentence‑‑Grounds not urged at hearing of petition, according to established practice, cannot be urged in review for mitigation of sentence. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art.188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1‑‑Criminal appeal‑‑Review‑‑ Fresh grounds‑‑Mitigation of sentence‑‑Grounds not urged at hearing of petition, according to established practice, cannot be urged in review for mitigation of sentence. Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 7th January, 1987. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑‑ In this petition review is sought against the order of this Court dated 28th of October, 1986, passed in Criminal Petition No.136 of 1982 eminently on two grounds. The first is the delay that has ensued before the execution of the order namely his detention in death‑cell for seven years and as under‑trial prisoner for three years; and, the second is that on the date of the commission of the crime, the petitioner was youthful offender.
2. Both these grounds were not urged at the hearing of the petition, and, according to the established practice, they cannot now be urged in mitigation of the sentence. Accordingly, the review petition is without) any substance and is dismissed. M.I. /M‑66/S Petition dismissed.