1979 P Cr (PLP)
FATEH DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1979 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Dilawar Mahmood, J |
| Parties | FATEH DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 P Cr (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 1979 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Dilawar Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 P Cr (PLP) (FATEH DIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Qur6an Sadiq Ikram for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426-Sentence, suspension of-Petitioner seeking suspension of sentence on ground of lapse of two years since appal filed-Provisions of law existing under S. 426(1-A)(c) not being applicable, petitioner, held, cannot demand suspension of sentence as of right-Suspension of sentence, however, granted in view of appeal not likely to be heard shortly.-[Bail-Delay]. Afazuddin for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 426-Sentence, suspension of-Petitioner seeking suspension of sentence on ground of lapse of two years since appal filed-Provisions of law existing under S. 426(1-A)(c) not being applicable, petitioner, held, cannot demand suspension of sentence as of right-Suspension of sentence, however, granted in view of appeal not likely to be heard shortly.-[Bail-Delay]. Mian Qur6an Sadiq Ikram for Petitioner. Afazuddin for the State. This is an application under section 426, Cr. P. C. for the suspension of sentence of the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant that he was convicted by au order of the Magistrate section 30, Pindigheb, on 28th June 1976. He is undergoing 7 years' R. I. under section 392, P. P. C. Suspension of sentence of the petitioner is sought on the ground that more than two years have elapsed since the filing of the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to state when this appeal is likely to come up for hearing. He, therefore, does not oppose this application. 3. Section 426 (I-A)(C) empowers the Court to order the release of a convict person on bail if he bas been sentenced to imprisonment for life or imprisonment exceeding 7 years and whose appeal has not been decided within a period of 2 years of his conviction. Strictly speaking the case of the petitioner/appellant does not come within the ambit of this provision. He has been sentenced to 7 years' R. I. His imprison ment, therefore, does not exceed 7 years. In my view he cannot demand the suspension of sentence as of right. In the circumstances, however, when it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that appeal is not likely to come up for hearing shortly I deem it proper to suspend the sentence of the petitioner/appellant subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.-G., Talagang. Sentence suspended.