1989 PLP 1405 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1405 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S.71‑‑Sentence‑‑Two different cases registered on two different occasions by means of two separate F.I.Rs. resulting in the conviction of the accused by two separate judgments‑‑Sentence in both the cases were to run consecutively‑ Petition seeking order that sentence in both cases to run concurrently was dismissed.‑‑Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1405 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1405 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S.71‑‑Sentence‑‑Two different cases registered on two different occasions by means of two separate F.I.Rs. resulting in the conviction of the accused by two separate judgments‑‑Sentence in both the cases were to run consecutively‑ Petition seeking order that sentence in both cases to run concurrently was dismissed.‑‑Sentence. bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1405 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 6‑11‑1988 in Cr. A. 822 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.71‑‑Sentence‑‑Two different cases registered on two different occasions by means of two separate F.I.Rs. resulting in the conviction of the accused by two separate judgments‑‑Sentence in both the cases were to run consecutively‑ Petition seeking order that sentence in both cases to run concurrently was dismissed.‑‑[Sentence]. Muhammad Akhtar, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Muhammad Ramzan, ex‑Cashier, Office of the District Education Officer, Mianwali, has filed two separate petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgments of the Lahore High Court dated ; 6‑11‑1988. Muhammad Ramzan both in his capacity as Cashier and Senior Clerk in the Education Department, misappropriated Rs.8,658 in the G.P. Fund Account of Nawaz deceased; Rs.19,489 lying in the G.P. Fund Account of Moqqarrab deceased and Rs.19,729 of Maqbool deceased. He was tried by the special Judge who convicted and sentenced him. His appeal before the High Court failed. In the other petition, allegation against him was that he submitted a note and drew Rs.3,445 from the scout fund to meet the expenses for transportation of jute Tats. Payment was received by him on 4‑9‑1986. He also submitted bill for Rs.5,842.33 for the repair of a machine which was passed by the District Accounts Officer on 21‑10‑1986 and he received the amount on 22‑10‑1986. He also misappropriated the amount of G.P.F. account of one Abdul Rehman who had applied for non‑refundable advance, which after having been duly sanctioned was never paid by the petitioner although there was an entry for its disbursement. In this case his appeal to the High Court also failed that is why two separate petitions for leave to appeal have been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nothing substantial was urged about the merits of the case. Ultimately the counsel submitted that as the sentence in both the cases is to run consecutively it may be ordered that the sentences shall be concurrent. We are unable to do so because of two different cases registered on two different occasions by means of two separate F.I.Rs, resulting in the conviction of the petitioner by two separate judgments. Both the petitions are dismissed being without any merit. M.B.A./M‑836/S Petition dismissed.