2006 PLP 1091 (SCMR)
MEHRBAN KHAN — Appellant Versus GHULAM MURTAZA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1091 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MEHRBAN KHAN — Appellant Versus GHULAM MURTAZA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1091 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1091 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1091 (SCMR) (MEHRBAN KHAN — Appellant Versus GHULAM MURTAZA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 302---Constitution of Pakistan, (1973), Art.185(3)---Complainant had sought enhancement of sentence of accused from imprisonment for life to death---Accused had already undergone sentence under S.302. P.P.C. as such appeal for enhancement of his sentence had become infructuous---Cases pending on the file of Supreme Court were to be decided according to law already laid down and matters could not be kept pending. till the decision of the larger Bench---Appeal was disposed of as having become infructuous accordingly.Bahadur Ali v. State 2002 SCMR 93 and 2002 SCMR 93 ref.Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court' for Appellant.Rab Nawaz Noon, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.Shahid Saleem, Superintendent Jail, Rawalpindi on Court Notice.Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- Date of hearing: 29th April, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from Order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 27-12-2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No.203 .of 1997).
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHR Y, J.
This, appeal by leave of the Court is directed against judgment, dated 27-12-2002 passed by Lahore High Court. (2). In pursuance of order, dated 16-4-2004, Superintendent Jail, Rawalpindi has submitted details of the sentences and the remission earned by respondent Ghulam Murtaza under-section 302, P.P.C. a perusal whereof indicates that he has already undergone sentence of 25 years' R.I. and six months' R.I. in lieu of compensation of Rs.20;000 after having earned remissions. Thus, it is held that respondent had served out sentences under section 302, P.P.C. (3). Learned counsel for the respondent contended that as the convict has already undergone legal sentence, therefore, in view of the judgment Bahadur Ali v. The State 2002 SCMR 93 and 2002 SCMR 93 appeal filed by the complainant has become infructuous. (4). On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for appellant opposed the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent and stated that in a number of cases, matters have been referred to larger Bench to consider whether after having served sentence of life imprisonment Court can enhance the sentence of a convict to
penalty of death under section 302 under circumstances of each case. (5). Learned counsel for the State has also adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. (6). After hearing parties' counsel and having gone through reported judgment referred to above, we are of the opinion that all the cases pending on the file of this Court are to be decided according to law already laid down by this Court and matters cannot be kept pending till the decision of the larger Bench. Thus, as per law laid down in the above cited case, respondent Ghulam Murtaza has already undergone sentence under section 302, P.P.C. as such appeal for enhancement of his sentence has become infructuous. Therefore, jail authorities are directed to release him from custody in the offence under section 302, P.P.C. However, he swill remain in custody till the expiry of sentence under section 324, P.P.C. as per the decision of High Court, dated 27-12-2002. (7). For the foregoing reasons appeal is disposed of as havingIB become infructuous. N.H.Q./M-100/SC Appeal dismissed.