1985 P Cr (PLP)
BAHAR SHAH and 5 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | BAHAR SHAH and 5 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (BAHAR SHAH and 5 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. A. Waheed for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 326, 325 & 324/149‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑Petition coming up for regular hearing after about sixteen years while petitioners having undergone agony of a protracted trial as also delay in disposal of their revision petition‑‑Sentence already undergone, held, would meet ends of justice, in circumstances. Muhammad Bashir Mirza for A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 326, 325 & 324/149‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑Petition coming up for regular hearing after about sixteen years while petitioners having undergone agony of a protracted trial as also delay in disposal of their revision petition‑‑Sentence already undergone, held, would meet ends of justice, in circumstances. Kh. A. Waheed for Petitioners. Muhammad Bashir Mirza for A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1985. This is a revision petition filed by Bahar Shah and five others, petitioners Nos. 1 to 6, against the judgment of a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Sialkot, dated 26‑4‑1969, dismissing their appeal. Earlier, a First Class Magistrate of Sialkot, by his judgment, dated 13‑5‑1968, had convicted the petitioners under sections 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 148, P.P.C. and sentenced them under section 326/149, P.P.C. to two years' rigorous imprisonment each, under section 325/149, P.P.C. to two years' rigorous imprisonment each, under section 324/149 to one year's rigorous imprisonment each, under section 323/149, P.P.C. to six months' rigorous imprisonment each and under section 148, P.P.C. to one year's rigorous imprisonment each; all the sentences being ordered to run concurrently.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners only presses for the reduction of the sentences of the petitioners on the ground that the present revision petition has come up for hearing after a great length of time. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this limited question will be attended to. This petition, which was admitted in 1969, has come up for hearing after almost sixteen years. The petitioners have undergone the agony of a protracted trial. The delay in the disposal of the present petition has also placed them under psychological sufference. Taking all circumstances into consideration I would reduce their sentences to that already undergone.
3. For the foregoing reasons, whilst maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under sections 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 148, P.P.C., I reduce their sentences to that already undergone. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. S. G. D. Order accordingly.