SCMR 2003

2003 PLP 1695 (SCMR)

MANZOOR alias TIWANA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition No. 193-L of 2001, decided on 2nd April, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2003 PLP 1695 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Parties MANZOOR alias TIWANA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1695 (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 1695 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday 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 1695 (SCMR) (MANZOOR alias TIWANA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Malik Muhammad Khan Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 2nd April, 2002.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 426

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)

Suspension of sentence

Ground urged for susper-ion of sentence of accused before the High Court in the fresh application was admittedly available when the previous application was dismissed by the High Court

All the grounds presently urged had already been argued in the previous application

Accused was attributed the role of stabbing the deceased repeatedly and the contention regarding his innocence required reappraisal of evidence which could be done at the time of hearing of appeal

Well-reasoned discretionary order passed by High Court declining plea of suspension of sentence warranted no interference

Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.

This petition is directed against the interim order, dated 26-2-2002 through which application filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment during pendency of his appeal has been dismissed by the Lahore High Court on the ground that his previous application had already been dismissed and no fresh ground had been made out.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the ground which he was trying to urge before the High Court in fresh application A was available when he made the previous application but the said ground having not been decided on merits should have been allowed to be argued.

3. The argument has no force. Besides we have gone through order, dated 10-4-2001 passed in the previous application of the petitioner and find that the petitioner had urged all the grounds which he has argued today. It was found that according to the conviction recorded B by the Trial Judge, the petitioner was attributed the role of stabbing Khalid deceased repeatedly therefore, the submission made by the petitioner regarding his innocence required reappraisal of evidence which may be done at the time of hearing of the appeal.

4. No ground has been made out for interference in the well reasoned discretionary order passed by the High Court declining plea of suspension of sentence therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q./M-667/S Leave refused.