1978 PLP 410 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1978 PLP 410 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 188, (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 188 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 410 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 188, (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 188 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 410 (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: 1978 PLP 410 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Elahi v. Ch. Zafarul Haque P L D 1976 S C 557 ref. Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 11th June 1978.
- Noor Elahi v. Ch. Zafarul Haque P L D 1976 S C 557 ref. Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab for the State.
- This Court's Order dismissing me petition for leave contains a clerical) error, as submitted by the Superintendent Jail. Accordingly we review) our order and correct it. We, therefore, clarify that as this court dismissed the petition for leave this means that the judgment of the High Court confirming the sentence of death against Bashir and Rajada stands. Similarly the judgment of the High Court refusing to confirm the sentence of death against Ibrahim and Ahmad Din was upheld and we clarify this. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General next drew our attention to the fact that murder for which 5 accused have been convicted was committed on 3‑7‑1969, therefore, he submitted that in view of this Court's judgment in Noor Elahi v. Ch. Zafarul Haque (PLD1996SC557), the correct sentence against Ibrahim, Ahmad Din and Boota was transportation for life and not imprisonment for life. This submission too is correct. Accordingly, we review silo motu our order of 29‑11‑1974 and direct that the sentences against Ibrahim Ahmad Din and Boota stand reduced from imprisonment for life to trans. portation for life.
Headnotes / Summary
Review-Order dismissing petition for leave containing clerical-review-Order reviewed and corrected. -- Review-Order showing accused to have been sentenced to "imprisonment for life"-Such order reviewed suo motu to read "transportation for life" for "imprisonment for life" occurring therein. Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
DORAB PATEL, J.‑Bashir, Rajada, Ibrahim , Boota and Ahmad Din were tried and convicted by the Sessions Court for murder. Boota was sentenced to imprisonment for life, whilst the other four accused were sentenced to death. All the accused filed an appeal in the High Court which was heard with the reference from the, Sessions Court for the con firmation of the sentence of death passed against Bashir, Rajada, Ibrahim and Ahmad Din. The High Court upheld the convictions of all the accused, dismissed the appeal of Rajada and Bashir and confirmed the sentence of death against them. However, the High Court reduced the sentence against Ahmad Din and Ibrahim to imprisonment for life. The accused thereupon challenged the judgment of the High Court in a petition for leave which was dismissed on 29‑11‑1974. As the petition for leave was dismissed, it meant that the sentence of death passed against Rajada and Bashir stood whilst the sentence of life imprisonment passed against Ahmad Din and Ibrahim was alto upheld. However, in the narration of facts in the Court's Order of 29‑11‑1974, it was erroneously stated that the High Court had "reduced the death sentence imposed upon Bashir and Rajada to transportation for life". As the High Court had confirmed the sentence against these two accused and reduced the sentence of Ahmad Din anti Ibrahim to life imprisonment, the Superintendent of Jail has filed an application for the review of out Order of 29‑11‑1974 on the ground hat it contains a clerical error. This Court's Order dismissing me petition for leave contains a clerical) error, as submitted by the Superintendent Jail. Accordingly we review) our order and correct it. We, therefore, clarify that as this court dismissed the petition for leave this means that the judgment of the High Court confirming the sentence of death against Bashir and Rajada stands. Similarly the judgment of the High Court refusing to confirm the sentence of death against Ibrahim and Ahmad Din was upheld and we clarify this. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General next drew our attention to the fact that murder for which 5 accused have been convicted was committed on 3‑7‑1969, therefore, he submitted that in view of this Court's judgment in Noor Elahi v. Ch. Zafarul Haque (PLD1996SC557), the correct sentence against Ibrahim, Ahmad Din and Boota was transportation for life and not imprisonment for life. This submission too is correct. Accordingly, we review silo motu our order of 29‑11‑1974 and direct that the sentences against Ibrahim Ahmad Din and Boota stand reduced from imprisonment for life to trans. portation for life. Order accordingly.