1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdul Rahim for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 11th July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 325 & 148/149‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439‑ Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Finding of guilt recorded by two Courts below‑‑Accused having already undergone 3 months' R.I‑‑Revision coming up for hearing after 14 years‑‑Conviction of accused though would not call for interference in revisional jurisdiction but ends of justice, held, would be squarely met by reducing sentence to one already undergone in circumstances. Malik Rahmat Ullah Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Abdul Rahim for Petitioners. Malik Rahmat Ullah Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 11th July, 1987. Petitioners were tried by the (Magistrate 1st Class, Shahpur Saddar, who vide judgment dated 30‑9‑1971 convicted them for offences under section 148/325/149, P.P.C. and sentenced them to six months' R.I. each under section 148, P . P . C . and to one year's R.I with a fine of Rs.300 each under section 325/149, P.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for period of six months each. Both the sentence were ordered to run consecutively.
2. Against the judgment of the trial Court, petitioners took an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, on 20‑1‑1973. Petitioners then preferred the present revision petition in this Court which was admitted to regular hearing on 5‑3‑1973 and the sentences of the petitioners were suspended.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not questioned the' convictions of the petitioners for the offences aforementioned. In fact, finding of guilt has been recorded by the two learned Courts after duly appreciating the evidence on the record and, as such, I conviction of the petitioners does not call for any interference in, revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel has only pressed for the reduction of the sentences awarded to the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners had remained in custody for a period of one month before the commencement of the trial and they had suffered the agony of protracted trial. His further submission is that the petitioners had already undergone the imprisonment for almost three months. Learned counsel also contends that the revision petition has come up for hearing after a lapse of more then 14 years for no fault of the petitioners and in the circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to send them back to jail after such a long time. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not controverted these submissions.
4. In the circumstances aforementioned. I am of the view that the ends of justice would be squarely met by reducing the sentences of the petitioners to one already undergone, Thus, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offence aforementioned, their sentences are reduced to that already undergone by them. Petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. S.A./M‑517/L Sentence reduced.