1971 PLP 657 (SCMR)
MAQSOOD‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1971 PLP 657 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAQSOOD‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 657 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 657 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 657 (SCMR) (MAQSOOD‑Petitioner Versus ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khalid Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8.th October 1971.
- The complainant has now come up to this Court for special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that under section 426, Cr. P. C. no bail can be granted. This is clearly incorrect for subsection (1) of section 426, Cr. P. C. itself states that pending an appeal by a convicted person the appellate Court may order the suspension of the sentence and also if he is in confinement order his release on bail or on his own bond. The next contention advanced by the learned Advocate is that in any event under this section no bail can be granted or order of suspen sion of sentence made unless the record has first been called for and perused by the High Court. This contention also is without any substance because no such limitation has been laid down in section 426, Cr. P. C.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 16‑6‑1971, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1187/B of 1971, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1971). (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 426‑Appellant convicted, by trial Court, to transportation for life‑Appellate Court has power under S. 426 to suspend sentence and release him on bail‑No limitation laid clown in S. 426 that appellate Court could not grant bail prior to calling for record and perusing same. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 426 & 497(1) Appellant convicted by trial Court to transportation for life‑High Court, in appeal, ordering suspension: of sentence an] releasing appellant .on bail on ground of illness‑Held : discretion exercise by High Court proper‑Principle laid down in proviso to S. 497(1), Cr. P. C. that such a person could be released on bail could be followed in granting bail under S. 426. (c) Practice and procedure‑Statute laying dawn certain principles for doing some acts‑Such principles may be taken as guidelines for doing something of same nature which is in discretion of Court.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The respondent in this case was tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, on the 12th April 1971, along with three others. He was sentenced along with one Ashraf to transportation for life and a line of Rs. 2,00() or in default further rigorous imprisonment of six months. Their appeal has been admitted for hearing by the High Court at Lahore. In the meantime, respondent, Ali Muhammad, applied under section 426, Cr. P. C. for the suspension of his sentence on the ground of illness and old age. A Division Bench of the High Court called for a report from the Doctor‑in‑Charge of the Jail Hospital. The report disclosed that the said respondent was 75 years old and was suffering from active arthritis and urinary infection. He was also reported to be suffering from Hypertension and swollen and painful joints. After perusal of this report the High Court suspended his sentence on condition that he furnished a bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. The complainant has now come up to this Court for special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that under section 426, Cr. P. C. no bail can be granted. This is clearly incorrect for subsection (1) of section 426, Cr. P. C. itself states that pending an appeal by a convicted person the appellate Court may order the suspension of the sentence and also if he is in confinement order his release on bail or on his own bond. The next contention advanced by the learned Advocate is that in any event under this section no bail can be granted or order of suspen sion of sentence made unless the record has first been called for and perused by the High Court. This contention also is without any substance because no such limitation has been laid down in section 426, Cr. P. C. The appeal, as already pointed out, has been admitted for regular hearing and, therefore, is pending before the High Court. The High Court clearly, therefore, possessed the jurisdiction under section 426, Cr. P. C. to make the order of suspension and to enlarge the respondent on bail. The discretion exercised by the High Court is also, in our opinion, in the facts of this case proper. Under the proviso to subsection (1) to section 497 a sick or infirm person may be released on bail even where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life. It is now well settled that where a statute itself lays down certain principles for doing some acts they l, may be taken as a guideline for doing something of the same nature which is in the discretion of the Court. There is no substance at all in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.