2007 PLP 1293 (YLR)
GHULAM MURTAZA and another-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1293 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Javed Sarfraz, J |
| Parties | GHULAM MURTAZA and another-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1293 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1293 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Javed Sarfraz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1293 (YLR) (GHULAM MURTAZA and another-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Karamat Ali Naqvi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 452, 148 & 149
Sentence of 5 years awarded to accused was a short sentence and revision filed by accused was not likely to be fixed in near future
Possibility was that revision could be fixed after 2/3 years and by that time accused would have served his sentence and he would have lost his valuable right
Sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court was suspended, in circumstances and accused was allowed bail. Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah and others 1999 SCMR 2589 and Nazir Ahmad and 2 others v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 657 ref. Kazim Iqbal Bhanghu for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SH. JAVED SARFRAZ, J.
The petitioners, Ghulam Murtaza and Ali Ahmad, involved in case bearing F.I.R. No.307 of 2000, dated 6-8-2000 under sections 324, 452, 148 and 149, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Zafarwal District Narowal were tried by learned Magistrate Section-30, Narowal, who vide his judgment dated 27-4-2006 convicted the petitioner under section 452, P.P.C. and sentenced them to 4 years' R.I. each with a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month R.I. However, they were granted the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal dismissed their appeal while maintaining conviction and sentence. Hence, the revision petition.
2. Through this application, the petitioners seek suspension of their sentence, mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence is short and that revision petition is not likely to be fixed in near future and has apprehension that by the time the same is heard, the petitioners would have served the entire sentence; that the petitioners are innocent and false case has been registered against them and there is a possibility that they are acquitted of the charge.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail petition.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revision is not likely to be fixed in near future and the petitioners would undergo their entire sentence appears to have some weight. There is a possibility that the present revision may be fixed after 2/3 years' and by that time the petitioner would have served his sentence, thus he would have lost his valuable right. The sentence of 5 years is a short sentence as held in "Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah and others" 1999. SCMR 2589 and "Nazir Ahmad and 2 others v. The State" 2005 PCr.LJ 657 in such-like cases, sentence should be suspended. I am therefore, inclined to suspend the sentence of the petitioner and he is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar Judl. of this Court. H.B.T./G-69/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence suspended.