1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 408(b)
Appeal to High Court shall lie only if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to accused exceeds four years, apart from any sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
S. 408(b)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324
Appeal from a substantive sentence of four years' R.I. and fine of Rs.10,000 or in default six months' R.I. would lie to Sessions Court and not to the High Court
Order of Sessions Court returning appeal to accused for presenting the same to High Court was, set aside being misconceived
Appeal before High Court being incompetent, it was returned to the accused for presentation before the Sessions Court.
Judgment & Decree
P L D 1958 Kar. 634 and P L D 1959 Kar. 56 ref. Abdus Sami Khawaja for Appellant. Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was convicted by Mr. Arshad Mehmood Cheema, Civil Judge with the powers of Magistrate Section 30, Kharian under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,
000. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed appeal in this Court under section 410, Cr.P.C. which was admitted to regular hearing vide order, dated 30-4-1994.
2. Today the learned counsel for the State has pointed out that as the sentence awarded to the petitioner/appellant does not exceed 4 years, therefore, in view of clause (b) of section 408, Cr.P.C. this appeal is not competent before this Court and should have been filed before the Sessions Court.
3. Confronted with this situation the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Session but that was returned to the petitioner being not competent before the Sessions Court vide judgment, dated 26-4-1994, placing reliance on P L D 1958 Kar. 634 and P LD 1959 Kar.
56. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was sentenced to four years' R.I. plus fine of Rs.10,000 or in default six months' R.I. so the imprisonment which the petitioner has to undergo comes to four years and six months; hence in view of clause (b) of section 408, Cr.P.C. the appeal is competent before this Court. He has also referred to the case-law relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the State contended that the criteria for entertaining an appeal by this Court laid down in section 408, Cr.P.C. is that the substantive sentence awarded to an accused person must be more than four years and if that is not so, then the first appeal would lie before the Court of Session.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully examined their respective submissions. A plain reading of section 408(h), Cr.P.C. would show that if an accused person is awarded substantive sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding four years then the appeal of such accused would lie to the High Court, apart from any sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. Therefore, in the present case, the appeal from a substantive sentence of four years' R.I. and fine of Rs.10,000 or in default six months' R.I. would lie to the 1 Court of Sessions and not to the High Court. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 26-4-1994 whereby he returned the appeal to the petitioner for its presentation to the High Court, being misconceived, is set aside and the petitioner is directed to file an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge under section 408, Cr.P.C. who would decide the same in accordance with law.
6. For the above reasons, the present appeal before this Court is incompetent. Office is directed to return the appeal to the appellant or any other person authorised by him in this behalf for its presentation before the proper Court i.e. the Sessions Court, Gujrat. N.H.Q./M-1676/L???????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.