1982 P Cr (PLP)
IQBAL HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1982 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J |
| Parties | IQBAL HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 P Cr (PLP) (IQBAL HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mr. Chohan for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ S, 426‑Sentence, suspension of‑Contention that petitioner having been convicted in 3 cases and sentenced to 2 years' R. I. in each case, it was not a fit case for suspension of sentence and bail
Repelled‑--Held: No justification to confine all sentences together at appeal stage for purpose of S. 426, Cr. P. C.--‑Sentence suspended and bail allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Ibrahim, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1981, decided on 26th April, 1981. ‑‑ S, 426‑Sentence, suspension of‑Contention that petitioner having been convicted in 3 cases and sentenced to 2 years' R. I. in each case, it was not a fit case for suspension of sentence and bail
Repelled‑--Held: No justification to confine all sentences together at appeal stage for purpose of S. 426, Cr. P. C.--‑Sentence suspended and bail allowed in circumstances. Mr. Chohan for Appellant. Muhammad Ibrahim, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. The sentence is 2 years' R. I. and Rs. 10,000 fine. Mr. Ibrahim opposes bail on the ground that there is conviction in 3 cases and the sentences are of 2 years' R. I. plus fine in each case under section 409, P. P. C. However there is no justification to confine all these sentences together at this stage and it would be only at the time after final disposal of appeal that the sentences will be suffered consecutively if the appeal order Toes not make a direction otherwise. Since the sentence is below 3 yeas' R. I. and it is the practice of this Court to suspend the sentence if it is below 3 years after the appeal is admitted unless there are compelling reasons otherwise, which I do not find in this case, therefore A I suspend the sentence and direct that the appellant shall be released on bail on providing one surety and P. R. in the sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rupess twenty‑five thousand only) to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Petition allowed.