2008 PLP 2441 (YLR)
MUHARRAM and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 2441 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J |
| Parties | MUHARRAM and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 2441 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 2441 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2441 (YLR) (MUHARRAM and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 367
Counsel for the appellants had pointed out certain infirmities in the contents of judgment of the Trial Court pleading that the same was untenable
State Counsel frankly conceded that impugned judgment could not be maintained
Judgment passed by the Trial Court being poor in the form and content, could hardly be allowed to exist
By consent, impugned judgment was set aside
Case was remanded to the Trial Court for rehearing the arguments and passing a fresh judgment in accordance with law within specified period
Concession of bail had been extended to accused persons. Hidayatullah A. Abbassi for the Appellants. Anwar H. Ansari for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.
Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out certain infirmities in the contents of judgment of the trial Court to plead that the same was untenable. Caught up in the web learned State Counsel frankly concedes that the impugned judgment could not be maintained. The judgment passed by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa A. Memon, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad being poor in the form and content could hardly be allowed to exist. Accordingly by consent impugned judgment is set aside, The case is remanded to the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for rehearing the arguments, and passing a fresh judgment in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months.
2. Learned counsel submits that before being convicted by the trial Court the appellants were on bail and that the case is being remanded on account of improper judgment therefore, they may be released on bail. Learned State Counsel has conceded to this request, particularly submitting that the arguments in the case were heard on 28-3-2006 while the judgment was passed on 31-10-2006 with an inordinate delay. Keeping in view very peculiar and compelling circumstances of the case in hand coupled with the outright no objection extended by State, concession of bail has to be extended to the appellants. In the circumstances the appellants are directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-84/K Case remanded.