1985 PLP 180 (SCMR)
SHAHID alias BABU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 180 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.366 & 376--Offence committed as far back as 1968--Conviction of accused by Magistrate in 1969--Appeal by accused filed before High Court in 1969, kept on pending and decided in April, 1984 maintaining conviction and sentence of accused--Appeal before Supreme Court--Appellant did not have much to urge before Supreme Court and Supreme Court did not find it to be a fit case for setting aside his conviction, but considering that about 16 years had passed since commission of offence, and both persons involved were married and each of them had a number of grown up children, allowed appeal to the extent that sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that already undergone--Petitioner being a)ready on bail, his bail bond stood discharged.--Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and N.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHID alias BABU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution, of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 180 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution, of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 180 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.366 & 376--Offence committed as far back as 1968--Conviction of accused by Magistrate in 1969--Appeal by accused filed before High Court in 1969, kept on pending and decided in April, 1984 maintaining conviction and sentence of accused--Appeal before Supreme Court--Appellant did not have much to urge before Supreme Court and Supreme Court did not find it to be a fit case for setting aside his conviction, but considering that about 16 years had passed since commission of offence, and both persons involved were married and each of them had a number of grown up children, allowed appeal to the extent that sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that already undergone--Petitioner being a)ready on bail, his bail bond stood discharged.--Sentence. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and N.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 180 (SCMR) (SHAHID alias BABU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.G. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1984.
- Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- 2. We issued notice to the State and Mian Nusratullah, Advocate appeared in compliance thereto on behalf of the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-4-1984, passed in Criminal Appeal No.589 of 1969).
Art.185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.366 & 376--Offence committed as far back as 1968--Conviction of accused by Magistrate in 1969--Appeal by accused filed before High Court in 1969, kept on pending and decided in April, 1984 maintaining conviction and sentence of accused--Appeal before Supreme Court--Appellant did not have much to urge before Supreme Court and Supreme Court did not find it to be a fit case for setting aside his conviction, but considering that about 16 years had passed since commission of offence, and both persons involved were married and each of them had a number of grown up children, allowed appeal to the extent that sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that already undergone--Petitioner being a)ready on bail, his bail bond stood discharged.--[Sentence]. Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Shahid petitioner was tried for offences under section 366/376, P.P.C. committed by him as far back as 1968, in relation' to Mst. Nasim Akhtar, prosecutrix. He was convicted and sentenced for the said offences by the learned trial Magistrate by his judgment, dated 31-7-1969. He filed an appeal before the 'High Court in the same year 1969 but the case, somehow, kept pending and was not fixed till 9th April, 1984, i.e. after about 15 years. The High Court maintained his conviction and sentence vice the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition.
2. We issued notice to the State and Mian Nusratullah, Advocate appeared in compliance thereto on behalf of the State. Considering that it is a very old case we do not wish to delay it any further, therefore, we convert it into appeal and proceed to dispose of it as such.
3. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Petitioner's counsel did not have much to urge and we do not think this to be a fit case for setting aside his conviction, but considering that almost 16 years have passed since the commission of the offence, and both the persons involved are married and each of them have 'a number of grown up children, we do not think that it shall serve the ends of justice to send the petitioner back to the jail at this juncture. We, therefore, allow the appeal to the extent that his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. He is already on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. M.Z.M. Order accordingly.