P L D 2004 Karachi 386 (PLP)
MASOOD KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2004 Karachi 386 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Nabi Soomro, J |
| Parties | MASOOD KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2004 Karachi 386 (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 P L D 2004 Karachi 386 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ghulam Nabi Soomro, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2004 Karachi 386 (PLP) (MASOOD KHAN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.320 & 322‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑Offence under S.320, P.P.C. was bailable whereas under S.322, P.P.C. it was non‑bailable, but both of them were compoundable ‑‑‑Sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court under 5.322, P.P.C., however, appeared to be illegal‑‑‑Was yet to be determined whether the accused could, under the law, be convicted and sentenced both under Ss.320 and 322, P.P.C. simultaneously‑‑‑Sentence awarded to accused was suspended in circumstances and he was released on bail accordingly. Abdul Samad v. The State 1999 SD 432; Safdar Ali Shah v. The State 1997 MLD 961; Shah Hussain v. The State PLD 1995 Kar. 209; Muhammad Farooq v. The State Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2002 (unreported); Naseer Khan v. The State Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2002 (unreported); Rasheed Ahmed v. The State Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2003 (unreported); Muhammad Anwar v. The State Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2003 (unreported) ref. Muhammad Aziz Khan for Applicant. Habib Rasheed for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(1) Abdul Samad v. The State 1999 SD 432; (2) Safdar Ali Shah v. The State 1997 MLD 961; (3) Shah Hussain v. The State PLD 1995 Kar. 209; (4) Unreported decision dated 18‑4‑2002 in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2002 (Muhammad Farooq v. The State). (5) Unreported decision dated 7‑1‑2003 in Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2002 (Naseer Khan v. The State). (6) Unreported decision dated 11‑7‑2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2003 (Rasheed Ahmed v. The State); (7) Unreported decision dated 1‑9‑2003 in Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2003 (Muhammad Anwar v. The State). Mr. Habib Rasheed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, in view of the above case‑law, does not oppose the prayer. Whereas offence under section 320, P.P.C. is bailable, the offence under section 322, P.P.C. is shown to be non‑bailable. Both the offences are however, made compoundable. Further, where the offence under section 320, P.P.C. has been made punishable up to R.I. for 10 years in addition to diyat the offence under section 322, P.P.C. has been made punishable with diyat only. Accordingly, sentence of R.I. for five years under section 322, P.P.C. awarded by the trial Court appears to be illegal. The appellant, however, stands convicted under section 320 and 322, P.P.C. simultaneously; whether this can be done and it would be permissible under the law, to award the two sentences, for Qatl‑e‑Khata (320, P.P.C.) and Qatl‑e‑Besabab (322, P.P.C.), at the same time, is a question which is left for determination at the time of decision of the appeal. In view of the above circumstances and the case‑law referred as above, the applicant is granted bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacks) only and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. N.H.Q./M‑35/K Sentence suspended.