1989 PLP 4403 (MLD)
MANZOOR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4403 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4403 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4403 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4403 (MLD) (MANZOOR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Lal Khan Baloch for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑Ss.380, 411 & 454‑‑Accused sentenced to undergo two years R.I.‑‑Agony of trial protracted for 10 years‑‑More than six months of sentence was undergone by accused as substantive part of sentence‑‑Sentence suspended meanwhile on furnishing of security in circumstances. Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, AA.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑Ss.380, 411 & 454‑‑Accused sentenced to undergo two years R.I.‑‑Agony of trial protracted for 10 years‑‑More than six months of sentence was undergone by accused as substantive part of sentence‑‑Sentence suspended meanwhile on furnishing of security in circumstances. Lal Khan Baloch for Petitioner. Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, AA.‑G. for the State. Learned counsel states that the petitioners were involved in a case registered at Police Station Bhawana on 17‑10‑1979 registered a/s 380/454/411, P.P.C. The alleged occurrence took place on 25th of September, 1979. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners F.I.R. was recorded on 17‑10‑1979 with a delay of more than 20 days. The petitioners were initially convicted by the Resident Magistrate Chiniot on 4‑11‑1980 and was sentenced to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,
000. Their appeal was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang on 16‑1‑1985 and the case was remanded. On remand the learned Magistrate Chiniot vide his order dated 29th of October, 1985 sentenced the petitioners to two years R.I. Against this conviction the present petitioners filed appeal and again the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 17‑3‑198ti remanded the case to the Magistrate. This time again the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 1‑7‑1987 convicted and sentenced the petitioners to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,
000. Against this last conviction the appeal I was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot on 31‑1‑1989. On the basis of this resume learned counsel has argued that the petitioners suffered the agony of trial for more than ten years and in this process had also undergone more than six months' substantive part of sentence. He has argued that in the circumstances of this case the sentence of two years is too harsh. Admit. Notice Sentence. of the petitioners is suspended in the meanwhile provided they furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 kith two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Chiniot S.A/M‑1455/L Sentence suspended.