1975 P Cr (PLP)
ALLAH BAKHSH‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1975 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. H. S. Qureshi, J |
| Parties | ALLAH BAKHSH‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. H. S. Qureshi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 P Cr (PLP) (ALLAH BAKHSH‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 19th December 1973.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S. 412‑Piea of guilty‑Accused convicted on plea of guilty- -Appeal, held, not competent except to extent of legality of sentence ‑-- Sentences passed by trial Court appropriate‑Order not interfered with. Ch. Muhammad Akbar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akbar for the State. Date of hearing : 19th December 1973. Appellant Allah Bakhsh has been preferred this appeal from jail against his conviction under sections 365 and 328, P. P. C. in the result of which ire was awarded, on the first count R. I. for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of which R.I. for a further period of two years, and on the second count R. I. for three years. The sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
2. The conviction, which followed the plea of guilty of the appellant, related to the kidnapping of Abdul Ghani, a boy aged about 16 years, resident of Chak No. 105/12‑L, P. S. Chichawatni. A few days prior to the occurrence, the boy had gone to Multan City to visit his aunt. With a view to return home, he had come to the bus‑stand at Multan on 28th August 1969, where the appellant had met him and offered to accompany him to Chichawatni. He bad then purchased sweetmeat and tea and offered the same to the boy. Upon eating the sweetmeat, the boy felt giddiness and in this state he was brought by the appellant to Jhang, where he took him to a Sarai and ordered for two cots. Ayyaz Mahmud P. W., the Sarai‑keeper, felt suspicion and on inquiry the appellant described the boy as his Munshi, but the boy denied that he was a Munshi. Ayyaz Mahmud thereupon cancelled their names from his register and refused to give them cots. While they were going out in the street, Jiwan Machhi, Muhammad Ibrahim, Ghulam Muhammad and Allah Bakhsh, P. Ws. who were at that time (8‑00 p.m.) at the shop of Jiwan, saw the two going together, and on suspicion followed them. The boy on seeing the witnesses raised alarm and began to cry. The witnesses then apprehended the two and brought them to Kotwali P. S. where the boy Abdul Ghani lodged his report.
3. The prosecution had examined a large number of witnesses, including Jiwan (P. W. 1), Muhammad Ibrahim (P. W. 2), Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 3) and Allah Bakhsh (P. W. 4), who bad apprehended the appellant; Ayyaz Mahmud (P. W. 5) and Abdul Ghani (P. W. 8). The medical evidence of Dr. Abdul Hamid (P. W. 11) and the analysis of the stomach content of the boy showed the presence of alcohol According to the Register of Births produced by Zahir‑ud‑Din Butt (P. W. 14), Abdul Ghani was born on 4th March 1953 and was as such a little over 16 years at the time of the occurrence. The appellant had pleaded guilty to both the charges under sections 365 and 328, P. P. C.
4. In his Memorandum of Appeal, he has alleged that he had been involved on account of enmity and that he had not committed any offence. The grounds are not tenable in view of his plea of guilty. Under section 412, Cr. P. C. no appeal can lie except as to the extent of legality of the sentence. Considering the circumstance of the case, it cannot be said that the sentence awarded suffers from any illegality of is excessive. The substantive sentences in both the counts have already been made to run concurrently. J; therefore, see no reason to interfere.
5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant shall be informed through the jail authorities. Appeal dismissed.