2004 PLP 1492 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD HASHIM and 14 others‑‑‑Applicants Versus THE STATE — ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1492 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Wahid Bux Brohi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HASHIM and 14 others‑‑‑Applicants Versus THE STATE — ‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1492 (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 2004 PLP 1492 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Wahid Bux Brohi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1492 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD HASHIM and 14 others‑‑‑Applicants Versus THE STATE — ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 19th January, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 426(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337‑A(ii)/148‑‑‑Application for suspen sion of sentence‑‑‑Appeal had been fixed for final hearing, but it was not clear if the paper‑book had beers prepared for the purpose of a regular hearing of the case of applicant/accused‑‑‑Preparation of paper book could take some time and sentence awarded to accused was short being not more than one year‑‑‑Application by accused for suspension of sentence was allowed and he was released on furnishing surety. Muhammad Khan Shahid v. State PLD 1997 SC 1; Abdul v. State 2001 Cr.LJ 502; Kamran Ali v. State 2000 YLR 3008 and Saeeda Bilques v. State 2000 PCr.LJ 548 ref. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicants. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Applicants. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo for the State. Date of hearing: 19th January, 2004. The applicants have been convicted on 24‑12‑2003 for offences punishable under sections 148 and 337‑A(i), P.P.C. and awarded sentences of imprisonment of six months and one year respectively, besides fine and Daman. They preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Dadu, which was admitted and an application was moved for suspension of sentence, which was dismissed on 10‑1‑2004 on the ground that the appeal is already fixed for final arguments. The said order has been impugned herein. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo, learned counsel for the State. The order of the learned Sessions Court shows that the appeal has been fixed for final hearing, but it is not clear if the paper book has been prepared so early, for the purpose of a regular hearing of the appeal. The impugned judgment shows that ten witnesses were examined in the trial Court, therefore, the learned counsel is justified in submitting that the preparation of paper book may take some time. Learned counsel relies on the order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2003, Criminal Acctt: Appeal No.33 of 2002, Muhammad Khan Shahid v. State PLD 1997 SC 1, Abdul v. State 2001 Cr.LJ 502, Kamran Ali v. State 2000 YLR 3008 and Saeeda Bilques v. State 2000 PCr.LJ
548. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Kourejo, learned State counsel in view of the law laid down in these authorities, does not oppose the application. The principles laid down in the cases cited at the bar are attracted in the circumstances of this case. The preparation of paper book may take some time. The sentence is short and not more than one year. In the circumstances, the application is allowed. The applicants be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and executing P.R. bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Appellate Court viz. Court of Session, Dadu. H.B.T./M‑29/K Application allowed.