SCMR 2002

2002 PLP 1168 (SCMR)

GULZAR SHAH.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.96‑L of 2002, decided on 1st March, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 1168 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Parties GULZAR SHAH.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1168 (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 2002 PLP 1168 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1168 (SCMR) (GULZAR SHAH.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

Representation

  • Ahmad wais, A vocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing: 1st March, 2002.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from order dated 7‑1‑2002 of Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.M.A. No. 2 of 2001 in Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2002). ‑‑‑‑S. 426(1)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑High Court while disposing of the application of accused for suspension of his sentence had passed an order that in case the appeal was not fixed within four months, similar application could be repeated‑‑‑Contention was that the sentence of accused was short and after the expiry of four months the unserved period of his sentence would not be more than one month‑‑‑Accused, in circumstances, was directed by Supreme Court to make an application to the Chief Justice of High Court for fixation of the main appeal at an early date‑‑‑Petition was disposed o~ the said observations accordingly. Nemo for the State.

Judgment & Decree

The learned Judge of the High Court while disposing of application of the petitioner for suspension of his sentence, has passed an order that in case, the appeal is not fixed within four months, similar application can be repeated.

2. The petitioner may repeat the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentence is short and after the expiry of four months, the unserved period of sentence would not be more than one month.

3. The petitioner may make an application in view of these circumstances to the learned Chief Justice for fixation of the main appeal at any early date.

4. This petition stands disposed of with the above observations. N.H.Q./G‑106/S Order accordingly.