PAGE 711 MISSING (PLP)
Before Zakluddin Pal, J Versus CHAIRMAN, MILITARY COURT, ]LAHORE‑Respondent
| Citation | PAGE 711 MISSING (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑ No. 5‑Sentence ‑ Sentence of rigorous imprisonment ‑ Can be combined only with whipping and/or forfeiture of property but, held, cannot be combined with fine.‑Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Zakluddin Pal, J |
| Parties | Before Zakluddin Pal, J Versus CHAIRMAN, MILITARY COURT, ]LAHORE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in PAGE 711 MISSING (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case PAGE 711 MISSING (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑ No. 5‑Sentence ‑ Sentence of rigorous imprisonment ‑ Can be combined only with whipping and/or forfeiture of property but, held, cannot be combined with fine.‑Sentence. bench comprising: Zakluddin Pal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: PAGE 711 MISSING (PLP) (Before Zakluddin Pal, J Versus CHAIRMAN, MILITARY COURT, ]LAHORE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Q. M. Salim for Petitioner.
- Rashid Aziz, A. A. G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th October, 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
Martial Law Order, 1977 1C. M. L. A.'sl‑ ‑‑ No. 5‑Sentence ‑ Sentence of rigorous imprisonment ‑ Can be combined only with whipping and/or forfeiture of property but, held, cannot be combined with fine.‑[Sentence].
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner, Manzoor was found guilty under section 304‑A, P. P. C. by the Summary Military Court, who sentenced him to six months' R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,
000. It is admitted that the term of the sentence of the petitioner has already expired but he has not been released on account of non‑payment of the amount of.fine.
2. The learned counsel has challenged the validity of the impugned order only insofar as it imposes fine of Rs. 3,000 upon the petitioner. He contends, while placing reliance upon Martial Law Order No. 5, that sentence of rigorous imprisonment cannot be combined with fine and it 'can be combined only with whipping and/or forfeiture of property. I have already taken view in some cases that sentence of rigorous imprisonment can be combined only with whipping and/or forfeiture of property and it cannot be combined with fine. In the present case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment has been combined with fine, which is not warranted by law.
3. As a result of the above discussion the sentence of fine passed against the petitioner being not sustainable in law is hereby set aside and the writ petition is partly accepted, without any order as to costs. If the petitioner has undergone the term of rigorous imprisonment and is being detained only on account of non‑payment of fine, then he will be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.