1998 P Cr (PLP)
MUKHTAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUKHTAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 P Cr (PLP) (MUKHTAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Zawar Shah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426(1-A)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Suspension of sentence-- Decision of, appeal within period provided under S.426(1-A), Cr.P.C. was statutory right of accused
Court in its discretion could refuse suspension of sentence if circumstances so warranted, but ordinarily if appeal was not disposed of within specified period, statutory right of suspension of sentence would not be withheld
Appeal being pending for decision for a period of more than two years, sentence of accused was suspended.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Zawar Shah for Petitioner. Muhammad Anwar-ul-Haq for the State. Date of hearing: 30th September, 1997. The petitioner upon conviction for the charge under section 302, P.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal vide judgment, dated 16-7-1995 was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has challenged the same through the Criminal Appeal No.269 of 1995 before this Court.
2. Learned counsel contends that the injury was received by the deceased accidently during the marriage ceremony, and that petitioner having been wrongly convicted deserves acquittal. He sought suspension of sentence on statutory ground as his appeal is pending for decision for a period more than two years.
3. The office has reported that the criminal appeals pertaining to the year 1986 are being fixed and the present appeal relating to the year 1995 cannot be fixed in near future.
4. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the decision of the appeal within the period provided under section 426 (1-A), Cr.P.C. is the statutory right of the petitioner. There is no cavil to the proposition that the Court can in its discretion refuse the suspension of sentence if circumstances so exist but, ordinarily, if the appeal is not disposed of within the specified period, the statutory right of suspension of sentence is not withheld. Consequently, the sentence of the petitioner is suspended, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-556/L Order accordingly.