1985 PLP 881 (MLD)
MUKHTAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 881 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J |
| Parties | MUKHTAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860.), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 881 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860.), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 881 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 881 (MLD) (MUKHTAR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Sargana for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 17th March, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 325/34--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439--Conflict between ocular and medical evidence. whether could be considered at revision stage--Concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below--No error of law found on record--Interference in concurrent findings at revisional stage, declined in circumstances.
S. 325/34--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439--Conviction having been recorded under S. 325/34, P.P.C--Trial Court and Appellate Court not imposing any fine--Mandatory for Courts to impose sentence of fine as well in addition to sentence of imprisonment.--[Sentence].
S. 325/34--Trial prolonged for mote than two years--Appeal disposed of after about one year from date of conviction--Accused remaining in and out of jail number of times--No useful purpose, held, would be served by sending accused back to prison to serve unexpired period of sentence and ends of justice would be met by reducing sentence to that already undergone with nominal amount of fine--Sentence reduced from nine months to one already undergone with fine of one thousand rupees in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 17th March, 1985. Mukhtar, his two sons Mumtaz and. Gulzar were tried under section 325 read with section 34 P.P.C., for causing injury to Abdul Razzaq. The trial Magistrate Ist Class, Shorkot by judgment dated 21-2-1984, convicted the three accused under section 325/34 P. P. C. , and sentenced them to 9 months R.I. each. The convicts appealed. The appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, by judgment dated 26-1-1985. Hence this revision.
2. The occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 21-12-1981, at 4:00,-Pam in the field of Haji Abdul Razzaq, in the village Rustam Sargana. The report was lodged by Sharif, son-in-law of Haji Abdul Razzaq the injured. The dispute was with regard to the possession of land.
3. The sole point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that there was conflict between the ocular and medical evidence The petitioners as such are entitled to acquittal. This submission has no force because there is a concurrent finding of fact by the two Courts below. Unless learned counsel points out any error of law, I am not inclined to interfere. He has failed to do so. Hence the only question to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled to some concession in the sentence. The occurrence took place on 21-12-1981. They were convicted on 21-2-1984. Their appeal was dismissed on 26-1-1985. They have been in and out of jail number of times.
5. Neither the trial Magistrate nor the appellate Court took notice of the fact that the conviction having been recorded under section 10 325/34 P.P.C., it was mandatory to have imposed fine as well.
6. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners back to prison to serve the un-expired period of sentence. On the other hand, ends of justice would be met if they Are set at p liberty with sentence already served by them and a nominal amount of fine. I, therefore, order that the sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice. In addition to that the petitioners shall pay fine of Rs. 1,000 each within one month. Whole amount shall be paid as compensation to Abdul Razzaq, the injured. In case of non-payment within such period, the Collector concerned shall take immediate steps for realization and payment of fine. The petitioners are en bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. S. A. Petition dismissed.