1989 PLP 702(1) (MLD)
NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 702(1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 702(1) (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 702(1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 702(1) (MLD) (NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Ehtisham Qadir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 304, Part 11‑‑Suspension of sentence‑ Appeal of accused not disposed of within two years nor there existed likelihood of appeal being heard at an early date‑‑Sentence suspended in circumstances. Ehsan Lillah for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 304, Part 11‑‑Suspension of sentence‑ Appeal of accused not disposed of within two years nor there existed likelihood of appeal being heard at an early date‑‑Sentence suspended in circumstances. Syed Ehtisham Qadir for Petitioner. Ehsan Lillah for the State. The petitioner, who stands convicted under section 304, Part 11, P.P.C. and sentenced to ten years' R.I., plus to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 in default whereof to undergo R.I. for two years, seeks suspension of his sentence on the grounds that his appeal has not been disposed of within two years since after his conviction and that since he had remained in jail during trial also for two years as well and that he has been given the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. he has already undergone a major portion of his sentence.
2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 27‑4‑1986. Obviously his appeal has not been disposed of within the passage of two years. Since there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard at an early date, the sentence of the P petitioner is suspended, subject to his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jhang. M.Y.H./N‑196/LBail allowed.