2021 P Cr (PLP)
KHADIM HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHADIM HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 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 2021 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 P Cr (PLP) (KHADIM HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 426 & 497
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 9(c)
Suspension of sentence pending appeal
Scope
Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 1250 grams of charas
Accused had already served one year, three months and seventeen days out of his sentence of four years and six months
Remaining portion of sentence to be undergone by accused was short
Appeal filed by accused had not been decided despite lapse of four months and sixteen days
No prospect of early hearing of appeal existed
Accused, if not released on bail during pendency of appeal, was likely to serve his entire sentence
Sentence awarded to the accused was suspended and he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Misc. No. 1 of 2019 Khadim Hussain son of Talib Hussain, petitioner/appellant by way of the instant petition has sought for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during the pendency of his appeal.
2. The petitioner was tried in case FIR No.295 of 2018 dated 10.12.2018 registered at Police Station Ghaziabad, District Sahiwal in respect of an offence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and vide judgment dated 20.08.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Judge Special Court, CNSA, 1997, Chichawatni, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under section 9(c) of CNSA, 1997 to Rigorous imprisonment for 04 years and 6 months with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for 05 months. The benefit available under section 382-B of Cr.P.C. was also extended.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. As per the prosecution case, Charas weighing 1250-grams was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. According to the report of Superintendent, Central Jail, Sahiwal, the petitioner has already served one year, three months and seventeen days of his sentence out of the sentence of imprisonment passed by the learned trial Court being four years and six months. The remaining portion of sentence to be undergone by the petitioner is short. The impugned judgment was passed on 20.08.2019 and as such a period of four months and sixteen days has already elapsed from the date of impugned judgment but the appeal filed by the appellant could not be decided, so far. The petitioner has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence which pertains to the year 2019 and there is no prospect of early hearing of the same in the near future. In case, the petitioner is not released on bail during the pendency of his appeal, there is every likelihood that, before the decision of his appeal, he would have undergone his entire sentence. Furthermore, it would certainly be impossible to compensate the petitioner for his detention in jail if ultimately he is acquitted, after having served out his entire sentence. On the contrary, in case of his release during the pendency of his appeal, the position would be different because in the event of dismissal of his appeal by this Court, he would be arrested for serving his remaining sentence. It will amount to awarding the petitioner punishment in advance. In this respect, we respectfully refer here the case of "Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah" (1999 SCMR 2589).
5. In the light of above discussion, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended and the petitioner namely Khadim Hussain son of Talib Hussain, is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing of this case. SA/K-4/L Bail granted.