1999SCMR2589 (PLP)
ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999SCMR2589 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, C. J., MunawarAhmed Muzak |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999SCMR2589 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999SCMR2589 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C. J., MunawarAhmed Muzak.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999SCMR2589 (PLP) (ABDUL HAMEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- A.H. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th January, 1999.
- 3. We ordered for issuing of the notice to the learned Advocate-General. In response to the above notice Mr. A.H. Masood, learned Advocate Supreme Court has put in appearance on behalf of the learned Advocate-General, Punjab. He opposes the above petition and has urged that both the Courts have rightly awarded the sentence inasmuch as the evidence was properly appraised and the inference were correctly drawn.
- 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Masud, learned Advocate Supreme Court, for the. petitioner, has urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge without putting to the petitioner the notice as to the enhancement of the sentence and without hearing the arguments, enhanced the imprisonment for three years to five years and the amount of fine from Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000. Without going to the question, whether any notice was issued for the enhancement by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (as according to the State counsel such a notice was issued). We are inclined to hold that since the sentence was short and as the sentence was enhanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge from three years to five years, it was fit case in which the Darned Judge in Chambers P` should have exercised the discretion in favour of the convict. We convert the above petition into appeal and admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
,
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Petitioner/convict was sentenced to three years' R. I. with fine by Trial Court, but Appellate Court below enhanced sentence of petitioner to five years' R.I.
Petitioner filed appeal against his conviction and sentence before High Court alongwith petition for suspension of sentence, but High Court declined to suspend sentence of petitioner
Since sentence awarded to petitioner was short and was enhanced by Appellate Court below, case .was fit in which High Court should have exercised its discretion in favour of petitioner/convict
Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and admitted petitioner to bail.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, C.J.
By this order we intend to dispose of above two petition which are directed against the order, dated 23-11-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court upon Criminal Miscellaneous No.2 of 1998 filed by the petitioner for suspension of the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge his order, dated 8-10-1998, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, Section 30, Lahore, under section 406, P.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to three years' R.I., with a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for three months. It appears that the petitioner/convict filed an appeal whereas the complainant filed a revision for the enhancement of the sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his above judgment, dated 8-10-1998 enhanced the sentence to five years and the amount of fine Rs.10,000 from Rs.5,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for three months. Against the above order/judgment the petitioner filed an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and revision before the High Court. In the above proceedings, the petitioner filed above Criminal Miscellaneous No.2 of 1998 for the suspension of the sentence which has been declined.
3. We ordered for issuing of the notice to the learned Advocate-General. In response to the above notice Mr. A.H. Masood, learned Advocate Supreme Court has put in appearance on behalf of the learned Advocate-General, Punjab. He opposes the above petition and has urged that both the Courts have rightly awarded the sentence inasmuch as the evidence was properly appraised and the inference were correctly drawn.
4. On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Masud, learned Advocate Supreme Court, for the. petitioner, has urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge without putting to the petitioner the notice as to the enhancement of the sentence and without hearing the arguments, enhanced the imprisonment for three years to five years and the amount of fine from Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,
000. Without going to the question, whether any notice was issued for the enhancement by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (as according to the State counsel such a notice was issued). We are inclined to hold that since the sentence was short and as the sentence was enhanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge from three years to five years, it was fit case in which the Darned Judge in Chambers P` should have exercised the discretion in favour of the convict. We convert the above petition into appeal and admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./A-168/S Petition accepted.