1987 PLP 1760 (SCMR)
IKHLAQ AHMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1760 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | IKHLAQ AHMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1760 (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 1987 PLP 1760 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1760 (SCMR) (IKHLAQ AHMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 25th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10‑5‑1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3‑B of 1986). ‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Conviction‑‑Appeal to High Court‑‑Suspension of sentence pending appeal‑‑Petition for suspension of sentence made to Supreme Court on High Court refusal‑Not appropriate for Supreme Court to say anything in matter when the same was pending before High Court‑‑Supreme Court on prayer of petitioner made observation "that if possible the appeal filed may be heard at an early date." Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑ The petitioners have been convicted under Section 302/34 PPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They filed an appeal before the High Court which is still pending. Meanwhile, they also applied to the High Court for suspending their sentence pending disposal of their aforesaid appeal. This was refused on 10‑5‑1986. They have now approached this Court with the same prayer. ' Obviously it will not be appropriate for this Court to say anything in such a case when the matter is pending before the High Court in appeal. However, the learned counsel argued that he has a very strong case on merits and the accused are likely to be acquitted and their continued incarceration in jail is most unjust. Hence the appeal filed by them before the High Court should at least be heard very early, namely, within a month or so. This is a matter for the learned High Court. We may, however, observe that if possible the appeal filed by the petitioners in the High Court may be heard at a very early date. This petition, with these observations, stands dismissed. K.B.A./I‑16/S. Petition dismissed.