1998 PLP 80 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 80 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan, Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 80 (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 1998 PLP 80 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan, Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 80 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1996.
- Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 12‑5‑1996 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1 of 1996 in Crl. Appeal No. 799 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑High Court had declined to suspend the sentence of accused and admit him to bail‑‑‑Contention was that the accused did not participate in the occurrence inasmuch as no effective role was assigned to him on the basis of evidence available on record ‑‑‑Accused's appeal being still pending decision in High Court, an exercise for having 'deeper appreciation of evidence of the parties was not possible at such stage of the case‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused‑‑‑Appeal of accused was, however, directed to be heard and decided by giving preference to the same. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.
On 28th of. November 1995, learned Judge Special Court No.I1I-Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore Division, Lahore convicted Sarfraz and Abdur Rasheed under section 302/34 P.P.C. and sentenced them to death plus compensation of. Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) each which was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned Judge also convicted Muhammad Ashraf; the petitioner herein under section 302/34 P.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) to the legal heirs of the deceased. In case of default thereof, they would further undergo six months imprisonment. Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Afzal were, however, acquitted by the learned Judge by giving them benefit of doubt. The appeal of the petitioner is still pending adjudication before the Lahore High Court. On 20th of May 1996, an application of the petitioner for suspension of sentence was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court. This petition for leave to appeal has been instituted
2. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner did not participate in the occurrence inasmuch as no effective role was assigned to him on the basis of evidence available on record. He has, therefore, claimed for his admission to bail by suspending his- conviction and sentence.
3. We have not been persuaded to interfere because petitioner's appeal is still pending decision in the High Court. This being so, an exercise for having deeper appreciation of evidence of the parties is not possible at this stage of the e case. The appeal of the petitioner, nevertheless, may be heard and decided by giving preference to it. With this observation, there is no substance in this petition which is dismissed by refusing leave to appeal. N.H.Q./M-9/SC Leave refused.