1993 PLP 1993 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AYUB‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1993 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Aslam Arain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1993 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1993 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Aslam Arain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1993 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AYUB‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mrs. Navin S. Merchant for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.426(1)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑Contention was that the provision of subsection (1‑A) of S.426, Cr.P.C. was not a bar to the suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal under subsection (1) of S.426, Cr.P.C. and bail could be granted‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused in .view of the said contention were suspended during the pendency of appeal and the accused was released on bail. Ali Asghar and another v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 746 and Ahmed v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 551 ref. Abdul Hakeem H. Bijarani, AA.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ali Asghar and another v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 746 and Ahmed v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 551 ref. Mrs. Navin S. Merchant for Appellant. Abdul Hakeem H. Bijarani, AA.‑G. for the State. The appeal filed by appellant has been admitted to regular hearing. B; this application, the suspension of sentence and release of appellant on bail i, sought during the pendency of the appeal. The learned Advocate for the appellant argued that the provision of subsection (1‑A) of section 426, Cr.P.C shall not be a bar to the suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal and that under subsection (1) of section 426 the sentence could be suspended and bail could be granted. In support of such contention the learned Advocate referred to 1991 PCr.LJ 746 AIi Asghar and another v. The State and 1990 PCr.LJ 551 Ahmed v. The State. The learned AA.‑G. has opposed this application but without referring to any precedent to support his contention. This application is allowed, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal and he shall be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. N.H.Q./M‑1838/K Sentence suspended.