1990 PLP 380 (SCMR)
SAMANDAR KHAN and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 380 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Appellate Bench |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah |
| Parties | SAMANDAR KHAN and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 380 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 380 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 380 (SCMR) (SAMANDAR KHAN and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 1989.
- Mian M. Ajmal, Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. for the State.
- SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to the two appellants to examine the weighty questions arising out of the facts and dealt with in a number of other cases decided by this Court and the Federal Shariat Court. Hafiz SA. Rahman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, has however, contended that those weighty questions may not be examined in this appeal but should rather be deferred to a more suitable case. He has not questioned the conviction of the appellants but has prayed that the sentence be appropriately reduced and benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. be allowed to the appellants. In this connection he has referred to two decisions, Saifur Rahman and another v. The State P L D 1982 F S C 29 and Ghulam Shabbir Shah v. The State 1983 S C M R 942 to contend that in almost identical situations and for similar offences the sentence of five years R.I. was held to be sufficient and the same would in this case serve the ends of justice. The learned Additional Advocate‑General could point out no distinguishing feature which may justify a sentence of ten years R.I.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Shariat Court, dated 3rd April, 1986, passed in Criminal Appeal No.7/I of 1986). Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑ ‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑F‑‑‑Sentence‑‑‑Sentence of five years' R.I. was held to be sufficient in almost identical situations and for similar offences‑‑‑Appeal was partly allowed and sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced from ten years' R.I., to five years' R.I. with benefit of S382‑B, Cr.P.C. in circumstances. Saifur Rahman and another v. The State P L D 1982 F S C 29 and Ghulam Shabbir Shah v. The State 1983 SCMR 942 rel. Mian M. Ajmal, Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑ ‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203‑F‑‑‑Sentence‑‑‑Sentence of five years' R.I. was held to be sufficient in almost identical situations and for similar offences‑‑‑Appeal was partly allowed and sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced from ten years' R.I., to five years' R.I. with benefit of S382‑B, Cr.P.C. in circumstances. Saifur Rahman and another v. The State P L D 1982 F S C 29 and Ghulam Shabbir Shah v. The State 1983 SCMR 942 rel. Hafiz S.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. Mian M. Ajmal, Additional Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. for the State. Date of hearing: 21st June, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to the two appellants to examine the weighty questions arising out of the facts and dealt with in a number of other cases decided by this Court and the Federal Shariat Court. Hafiz SA. Rahman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, has however, contended that those weighty questions may not be examined in this appeal but should rather be deferred to a more suitable case. He has not questioned the conviction of the appellants but has prayed that the sentence be appropriately reduced and benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. be allowed to the appellants. In this connection he has referred to two decisions, Saifur Rahman and another v. The State P L D 1982 F S C 29 and Ghulam Shabbir Shah v. The State 1983 S C M R 942 to contend that in almost identical situations and for similar offences the sentence of five years R.I. was held to be sufficient and the same would in this case serve the ends of justice. The learned Additional Advocate‑General could point out no distinguishing feature which may justify a sentence of ten years R.I.
2. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the judgments referred to, this appeal is partly allowed against sentence of rigorous imprisonment alone which is reduced from ten years to five years affording to the appellants the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. as well. In other respects the ~Pr of conviction and sentence remains intact. M.A.K./S‑464/S Order accordingly.