1985 PLP r (PCRLJ)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP r (PCRLJ) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP r (PCRLJ)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP r (PCRLJ)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP r (PCRLJ) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G.N. Gohar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th September, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 279/429‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 Accused while driving bus rashly striking against bullock cart driven by complainant and causing fracture of leg of bullock‑‑Accused not challenging conviction at time of arguments but only praying for reduction of sentence‑‑Complainant, owner of bullock appearing in High Court and stating that he has been compensated and has compromised with accused‑‑Compromise with complainant, held, is a recognized ground for reduction of sentence‑‑Sentence of ‑Imprisonment reduced to one already undergone in circumstances.‑‑[Compromise Sentence]. Rana Pervaiz Ahmad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
G.N. Gohar for Petitioner. Rana Pervaiz Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 4th September, 1984. Muhammad Saleem petitioner was tried by the Assistant Commissioner/ Magistrate Section 30, Bahawalnagar for offences under section 279/429, P.P.C.
2. The charge against him was that on 4‑3‑1981 he drove Bus No. LEG 1633 rashly which struck against a bullock cart driven by Ata Muhammad complainant causing fracture of the leg of the bullock of the complainant.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, Ata Muhammad P.W. 1, Jan Muhammad P.W.2, Muhammad Hanif P.W.3 supported the charge against the appellant. Noor Muhammad P. W.6 proved signatures of Dr. Muhammad Rafiq on medical report regarding the injury on the leg of the bullock. Rest of the evidence was of formal nature.
4. The learned counsel has not challaneged the conviction and rightly so because there is sufficient reliable evidence to prove the commission of crime by the appellant. The learned counsel has requested for reduction in the sentence on the ground that the complainant, the owner of the bullock having now been compensated, has compromised. Ata Muhammad the complainant alongwith identity card is present in the Court. He states that he has been compensated by the relatives of the petitioner.
5. Since compromise with the complainant is a recognized ground for the reduction of sentence, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to one already undergone. The fine of Rs.500 is however, maintained in default thereof the appellant shall undergo R.I. for three months. The fine when recovered be paid to Ata Muhammad complainant as directed by the trial Court. The relatives of the petitioner have paid Rs.500 to Ata Muhammad complainant in the Court. The warrants/order for the release of the petitioner be issued forthwith. H.A.K. Revision partly accepted.