1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ghulam Sarwar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ 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: Ch. Ghulam Sarwar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑‑Accused had been sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. and he had remained in jail for more than one year and three months‑‑‑Sentence of accused was reduced to imprisonment already undergone by him in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1993. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27‑2‑1991, whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and was sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. for the recovery of a carbine.
2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that a case F.I.R. No.139 of 1988 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kahna under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance for the recovery of a carbine. The petitioner was challaned and after recording the evidence the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced him to two years' R.I. This conviction was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but as stated earlier, the appeal was also dismissed.
3. At the very outset the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the‑petitioner was arrested on 3‑6‑1988 and remained in the jail for some days when he was released on bail. He was again taken into custody at the time of hiss conviction but was again released on bail after some days when his appeal was filed. Lastly he was taken into custody on 9‑3‑1992 and since then he is in the jail in spite of the fact that his conviction and sentence was suspended by this Court's order dated 6‑7‑1992. It is maintained that the period of detention undergone by the petitioner which is about 1 year and three months and the agony of trial faced by him is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
4. After having heard the learned counsel I have also gone through the record. The figures regarding the detention of the period undergone by the petitioner in the jail as under‑trial prisoner and convict prisoner have been verified. The petitioner has been sentenced only to undergo two years' R.I. and he has remained in the jail for more than 1 year and three months so the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, in the given circumstances, of this case is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
5. Resultantly this revision petition is dismissed and after maintaining the conviction I reduce the sentence already undergone by him. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case, as the learned counsel states that in spite of bail granted by this Court on 6‑7‑1992, in this case, he was not released from jail. N.H.Q./M‑1007/L Sentence reduced.