1985 PLP (1) (SCMR)
ABDUL RASHEED alias SHEEDA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP (1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHEED alias SHEEDA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP (1) (SCMR) (ABDUL RASHEED alias SHEEDA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th September, 1984.
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 412--Dishonestly receiving property stolen in commission of dacoity--Bail--Despite the fact that case was not that of Hudood offence, as no two male witnesses were available to testify on main occurrence, nonetheless it was a case of Tazir punishable with same punishment as prescribed under S. 412, P.P.C. i.e. imprisonment for life or 10 years--Stolen property which. was subject-matter of dacoity was allegedly recovered from accused Bail held, rightly refused to accused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑ ‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 412‑‑Dishonestly receiving property stolen in commission of dacoity‑‑Bail‑‑Despite the fact that case was not that of Hudood offence, as no two male witnesses were available to testify on main occurrence, nonetheless it was a case of Tazir punishable with same punishment as prescribed under S. 412, P.P.C. i.e. imprisonment for life or 10 years‑‑Stolen property which. was subject‑matter of dacoity was allegedly recovered from accused Bail held, rightly refused to accused in circumstances. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 5th September, 1984. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑Despite the fact that it is not a Hudood offence as no two male witnesses are available to testify on the, main occurrence nonetheless it is a case of Tazir punishable with the same punishment as prescribed under section 412, P.P.C., that is, imprisonment for life or 10 years. The stolen property which was the subject‑matter of dacoity was allegedly recovered from this petitioner, and, in the circumstances, we do not find any error in the judgment of the High Court if it has not allowed bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. M.B.A. Petition dismissed.