1985 P Cr (PLP)
DILAWAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mahboob Ahmad, J |
| Parties | DILAWAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mahboob Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (DILAWAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑S.148/149/325‑‑Accused, sentenced to six months' imprisonment, serving 1 months and released on bail about sixteen years ago‑‑No allegation made by State that accused involved themselves during this period‑‑Sending accused back to prison to serve out unserved portion of sentence not justified and might on. contrary trigger enmity between parties which must have healed up‑‑Sentence of accused reduced to what they had already undergone in circumstances.‑‑[Sentence]. Shabbir Lali for A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
3. On the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Magistrate convicted all the five co‑accused and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment as under by his order, dated the 20th of August, 1968:‑ Under section 325/149, P. P. C. to one year's rigorous imprisonment each; Under section 148, P.P.C. to six months' rigorous imprisonment each; The sentences were to run concurrently.
4. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment, dated 4‑3‑1969 maintained the conviction but reduced the sentences as follows: ‑ The sentences of Ahmad Yar and Dilawar petitioners under section 148, P.P.C. was maintained whilst it was reduced to 6 months' R.I. from one year under section 325/149, P.P.C; The sentences of the other three co‑accused were reduced to till rising of the Court under section 148, P.P.C. and till rising of the Court also under section 325/149, P. P. C. with a fine of Rs. 100, in default whereof they were to undergo R.I. for three months each. The sentences were to run concurrently in case of each accused.
5. No one has appeared for the petitioners. I, however, find from the record that in effect the petitioners had to undergo imprisonment for 6 months only in that the sentences awarded to them on various counts were to run concurrently. Out of these sentences they have already served about 1 month. They have been on bail after the admission of the revision petition on 8th of April, 1969, i.e. for about 16 Years. At this stage it will be unjust to incarcerate them once again) to undergo the unserved sentence. 6: There is no allegation by the State that these petitioners have been involved in any criminal act after the above incident. The sending of the petitioners to prison now to undergo the unserved sentence might on the contrary trigger enmity between the parties which must have been healed by now.
7. In view of the above discussion while dismissing this revision petition I would reduce the sentences of the petitioners to that already undergone by them.
8. For the same reasons on which the sentence has been reduced as above, no further proceedings are called for in the connected Criminal Revision No.374 of 1969 based on show‑cause notice for enhancement of sentence, which is accordingly dismissed. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.