1985 PLP 1599 (MLD)
ABDUL WAHID — Petitioner, Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1599 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHID — Petitioner, Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1599 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1599 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1599 (MLD) (ABDUL WAHID — Petitioner, Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th July, 1985:
Headnotes / Summary
S.426--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/149--Suspension of sentence--Accused not causing any injury to injured prosecution witness--Question of vicariom liability of accused, needed serious consideration--Sentence of accused suspended in circumstances. Muhammad Fahim Riaz Khan for State.
Judgment & Decree
S.426--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/149--Suspension of sentence--Accused not causing any injury to injured prosecution witness--Question of vicariom liability of accused, needed serious consideration--Sentence of accused suspended in circumstances. Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner. Muhammad Fahim Riaz Khan for State. Date of hearing: 16th July, 1985: This is an application by Abdul Wahid petitioner for the suspension of the execution of sentence. He stands convicted under sections 307 and 149, P.P. C. and sentenced to four years' R.I and a. fine of Rs.2,000 in default thereof six months' R.I and one year's R.I., respectively, with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not caused any injury to the Injured prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel. for the State is not in a position to controvert the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That being the position, I am of the view that the question of vicarious liability of the petitioner in the circumstances of the case needs serious consideration. So the execution of the sentence is suspended and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner Duty Magistrate, Bahawalpur. H.A.K. Bail granted.