2003 PLP 1723 (SCMR)
MANSOOR AHMED SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1723 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MANSOOR AHMED SHAHID — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1723 (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 2003 PLP 1723 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1723 (SCMR) (MANSOOR AHMED SHAHID — 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 for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 10th July, 2002.
- Ch. Imtiaz Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 25-5-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2 of 2001).
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
High Court had noticed that the appeal of accused could not be taken up as the other Criminal Appeals for the year 1998-1999 were still pending
One year had already elapsed since the impugned order was passed by the High Court
Situation of pendency of criminal appeals in the meantime might have improved
Discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to suspend the sentence of accused was neither arbitrary nor fanciful and the matter did not warrant any interference by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was declined to accused accordingly. Ch. Imtiaz Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against order dated 25-5-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2 of 2001.
2. The petitioner was convicted for the murder of Fayyaz Ahmed and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated 28-2-2000 by the Additional District Judge, Bhalwal, on the basis of circumstantial evidence such as motive, extra-judicial confession, reco4ery of the dead body/skeleton with some articles and recovery of gun. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.314 of 2000 against his conviction and sentence in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The petitioner also moved Criminal Miscellaneous No.2 of 2001 for the suspension of his sentence and grant of bail which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 25-5-2001.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no evidence on record connecting the petitioner with the commission of offence. It was further contended that the evidence of P.W.7 Muhammad Irfan Ahmed as to the joint extra-judicial confession of four accused persons including three acquitted co-accused could not furnish any valid basis for keeping the petitioner behind the bars. The recovery of skeleton of the deceased after 1 year and 9 months of the occurrence together with the identity card and Chadar of the deceased was highly doubtful. The recovered gun having not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory was of little value for the prosecution case. The petitioner was behind the bars for more than three years and his appeal had not been set down for hearing. It was pointed out that the petitioner had withdrawn his earlier bail application on 21-2-2001 for the reason that his main appeal would be fixed for hearing on 27-4-2001 but the same was ordered to be fixed in due course.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We would not like to make any observations with regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner touching the merits of the case as the same might cause prejudice to either side. The High Court has noticed that the appeal of the petitioner could not be taken up as the other criminal appeals for the year 1998-11999 were still pending. It is already over one year when the impugned, order was passed by the A Lahore High Court. In the meantime the situation of pendency of criminal appeals might have improved. The petitioner is a life convict. The discretion exercised by the Lahore High Court in refusing to suspend the sentence of tile petitioner is neither arbitrary nor fanciful. This is not a fit case for interference by this Court.
5. This petition has no merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. N.H.Q./M-554/S Leave refused.