2005 PLP 1024(1) (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SAJID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1024(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid and Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAJID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1024(1) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1024(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid and Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1024(1) (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SAJID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Qadeer Asif Toor for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(b)
Accused had served out one half of sentence and no likelihood was of early hearing of appeal and in case his appeal was decided in routine, he would serve out his entire sentence
Sentence of accused was suspended accordingly. Masood Sabir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Seeks suspension of sentence recorded against the appellant vide judgment dated 27-1-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi in case F.I.R. No. 303 of 2002 dated 5-9-2002, under Articles 3/4 and 4/97 (sic) of PEHO, 1979 and 9(b) of CNSA, 1997 registered with Police Station, Tibba Sultanpur and was sentenced to two years rigorous and a fine of Rs.10,000 for recovery of Charas weighing 500-gram and in default thereof to suffer further two months simple imprisonment. He was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. We have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested on 5-9-2002 and he has served out one half of the sentence and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal and in case the appeal is decided in routine, he will serve out his entire sentence, therefore, his sentence be suspended. 3-A. The learned State counsel has not opposed the petition.
4. In view of the above position, he has served out one half of his sentence. There is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal and till the decision of the appeal, in routine he will serve out his entire sentence. Therefore, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount during the pendency of the appeal for the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. H.B.T./M-653/L Sentence suspended.