1985 PLP 1990 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASOOL — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1990 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1990 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1990 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1990 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASOOL — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aslam Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 14th April, 1985.
- Aslam Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 382-B--Major part of sentence of rigorous imprisonment finally awarded to accused already expired and accused instead of pressing appeal praying only for benefit of S. 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code only--Circumstances of case showing that it was a fit case for granting benefit of said provision of law to accused--Ordered accordingly. M. Yousuf, A.A.-G. Baluchistan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ In this appeal through leave of, the Court, learned counsel for the appellant states that the major part of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment finally awarded to the appellant having already expired, he would be satisfied if benefit ox section 382‑B of Cr.P.C. only is allowed to him. In view of the afore-recorded position taken by him this appeal is not being pressed. In the circumstances of the case as highlighted in the leave granting order, we consider it a fit case for granting the benefit of section 382‑B of Cr.P.C. to the appellant. Order accordingly. The appeal however otherwise, is dismissed as not being pressed. M . Y . H Appeal dismissed