2001 PLP 1670 (MLD)
ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1670 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, J |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1670 (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 2001 PLP 1670 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1670 (MLD) (ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sakhi Sultan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 423, 439 & 439‑A‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14‑‑‑Enhancement of sentence‑‑‑Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine‑‑‑Sentence of three years' imprisonment, on appeal, was also inflicted on the accused by Sessions Judge without serving the accused with a notice of enhancement of the sentence‑‑‑Appellate Court under provisions of S.423, Cr.P.C. was not competent to enhance the sentence, but sentence could only be enhanced by a Court of revision‑‑‑Sessions Judge by virtue of S.439‑A, Cr.P.C. had to exercise powers of revision and the procedure provided by S.439 had to be followed whereunder the sentence inflicted on an accused could not be enhanced unless he had been heard and given opportunity to show cause "as to why sentence be not enhanced" ‑‑‑Sessions Judge while inflicting the sentence of imprisonment on the accused, had not adopted the prescribed procedure and had failed to serve the accused with the required notice‑‑ Imposition of the sentence of imprisonment on the accused was patently illegal in circumstances. Queen‑Empress v. RAm Kuria ILR 1884 p. 622; Mehtar Ali and others v. Queen‑Empress ILR 1885 p. 530; Fazal‑e‑Rahim v. The State and another 1974 SCMR 386; Sher Bahadar v. The State 1992 MLD 42 and Jangel Parshad v. The State AIR 1953 SC 467 ref. Waseem Jadoon for the State.