1989SCMR454 (PLP)
GUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR454 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Bench |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah, and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ |
| Parties | GUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR454 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR454 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah, and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR454 (PLP) (GUL REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1988.
- Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8-3-1988 of the Federal Shariat Court in Cr. A. No.7-P of 1988).
Art 4--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203-F--Leave to appeal, grant of- Enhancement of sentence in exceptional case deserving lighter sentence- Petitioner convicted under Art.4 of Order 4 of 1979 was awarded 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with stripes and fine on account of his being first offender--Appellate Court enhanced sentence to 5 years--Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that Trial Court having held it to be an exceptional case, normal standard did not apply and that enhancement of sentence was not justified because Trial Court had given reasons why lighter sentence was imposed and Appellate Court, without considering those reasons, enhanced sentence merely on ground that it was much below normal standard.--[Sentence]. Nemo for the State..
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ArtA‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑F‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑ Enhancement of sentence in exceptional case deserving lighter sentence‑ Petitioner convicted under Art.4 of Order 4 of 1979 was awarded 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with stripes and fine on account of his being first offender‑‑Appellate Court enhanced sentence to 5 years‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that Trial Court having held it to be an exceptional case, normal standard did not apply and that enhancement of sentence was not justified because Trial Court had given reasons why lighter sentence was imposed and Appellate Court, without considering those reasons, enhanced sentence merely on ground that it was much below normal standard.‑‑[Sentence]. Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.. Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1988. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner was tried under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with ten stripes and a fine of Rs.500 or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for three months, for having in his possession 20 grams of heroin. While awarding this sentence the learned trial Judge (Sessions Judge, Kohat) noted:‑‑ "The lenient view is taken in the matter because Gul Rehman is the first offender and there is nothing on record to suggest that prior to this occurrence he was dealing in Heroin Business." The Federal Shariat Court not only confirmed the conviction but enhanced the sentence after giving notice to five years' rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of whipping and fine. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enhancement in sentence by the Federal Shariat Court was not justified because the learned trial Court had given reasons why a lighter sentence was being imposed and the A Federal Shariat Court without considering those reasons has enhanced the sentence merely on the ground that it was much below the normal standard. The submission is that the learned trial Court had held that this is an exceptional case and, therefore, the normal standard did not apply. The submission requires consideration. Leave is granted only on the question of sentence. Meanwhile, the sentence of the petitioner will be suspended on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa Magistrate. M.I./G‑139/S Leave granted.