1982 SCM R 628 (PLP)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER — Appellants Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1982 SCM R 628 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ---- S. 382-B-Sentence-Period of detention in custody-High Court considering period of detention in custody of accused for offence in 7o"t question and awarding him impugned sentence after such consideration-Contention, held, without merit. Sentence. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER — Appellants Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 SCM R 628 (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 1982 SCM R 628 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---- S. 382-B-Sentence-Period of detention in custody-High Court considering period of detention in custody of accused for offence in 7o"t question and awarding him impugned sentence after such consideration-Contention, held, without merit. Sentence. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 SCM R 628 (PLP) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER — Appellants Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ashiq Hussain Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Nazar Khan, Advocate- on-Record for Appellants.
- Date of hearing : 13th February, 1982.
- Ashiq Hussain Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Nazar Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Appellants.
- Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate- on‑Record, for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-9-1979 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 823 of 1976).
S. 382-B-Sentence-Period of detention in custody-High Court considering period of detention in custody of accused for offence in 7o"t question and awarding him impugned sentence after such consideration-Contention, held, without merit. [Sentence]. Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate- on-Record, for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑ Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddiq, appellants, were tried under section 302/307/39, P. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, however, convicted them under section 325/323/34, P. P. C. and sentenced them as follows: "Under section 325, P. P. C: Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique were sentenced to 7 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or one year R. I. each in default of payment of fine. Under section 323/34, P. P. C. each of them was sentenced to one year R. while Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Ghani were sentenced only to one year R. I., each under section 325/34, P. P. C. and another one year R. I. under section 323/34, P: P. C: each. All the sentences were to run concurrently:"
2. On appeal the High Court reduced, the sentences of Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Ghani to that period already undergone. It reduced, the sentences of Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique to 4 years R. I., each with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or six months R. I., In default of payment of fine. It, however, made no mention of the sentence under section 323/34, P. P. C. as that sentence bad already been served.
3. The present appeal is directed against the abovementioned judgment of the High Court reducing the appellants' sentence.
4. Before us the counsel for the appellants did not contest the case in merits but only submitted that the learned High Court had omitted to reconsider the provision of section 382‑b, Cr. P: C., which provides that the Court sentencing the accused to imprisonment is required to take into consideration the period during which he (the accused) was detained in custody for the offence in question.
5. On going through the last paragraph (pare: No. 7) of the impugned judgment we find that the learned Judge in Chamber had in fact, considered this question while reducing the sentences of the appellants: under section 325/34, P. P. C. from.7 years'. R. I. to, 4, years' R; I.
6. The appeal has no merit and is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed.