1994SCMR 1621 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994SCMR 1621 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR 1621 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR 1621 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR 1621 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Taki Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 7th May, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29‑6‑1993 passed in CrA. 854/1992). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 316‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention which was of general legal importance that petitioners being poor could not pay the Diyyat amount nor any of their relations could procure such a huge amount for payment and in consequence thereof they could not be released till payment was made and that the provisions of law regarding Diyyat as contemplated by Islam did not require a convict to remain in jail for many years/life for non‑payment of Diyat amount, but he was entitled to be released on condition to earn and pay the same. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber whereby they have been convicted and sentenced under section 316, P.P.C. to five years' R.I. with Diyyat of Rs.1,75,000 to be given to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. Mr. Taki Ahmed Khan learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are poor people and cannot pay the Diyyat amount nor any of their relations can procure such a huge amount for payment and in consequence thereof they cannot be released till payment is made. The learned counsel contended that the provisions of law regarding Diyyat as contemplated by Islam do not require a convict to remain in jail for many years/life for non payment of Diyyat amount, but he is entitled to be released on condition to earn and pay the same. The question raised is of general legal importance and requires consideration. Leave is granted. M.BA./M‑2092/S Leave granted.