1987 PLP 2247 (MLD)
ALASAW GARDBA ALI and 6 others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2247 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, J |
| Parties | ALASAW GARDBA ALI and 6 others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2247 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2247 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2247 (MLD) (ALASAW GARDBA ALI and 6 others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S . M . Sayedain Zaidi for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S.156(1)(8)--Appeal--Contention that trial of accused jointly was not legal and that sentence and amount of fine was not compatible with magnitude of offence
Accused did not raise any objection as to alleged irregularity in joint trial before Court below but pleaded guilty--Accused, held, could not raise such plea in appeal--Sentence and fine imposed by Special Court also appearing to be on lower side--Interference declined by High Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(3) Lateef Abiodun Rabatunde. 300 grams (4) Aliu Kalejaiye Dada 280 grams (5) Taofiki Baloguw 270 grams (6) Ganiya Bolariwa Salau 290 grams (7) Mathew Olumuyiwa Talabi 230 grams They were charged with the above offence before the learned Special Judge. They pleaded guilty. Upon the above plea the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellants and awarded the above sentence and imposed the aforesaid fine. The appellants have filed the present appeal jointly against the above judgment.
2. In support of the above, Mr.S.M.Sayedain Zaidi, learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently urged that the trial of the appellants jointly was not legal. He has further submitted that even the sentence and the amount of fine are not compatible with the magnitude of the offence.
3. Since the appellants had not raised any objection as to the above alleged irregularity in the joint trial but pleaded guilty, it is not open to the appellants to raise this plea in the appeal. As regards the second submission it will suffice to observe that the sentence and the fine imposed by the learned Special Judge seem to be on the lower side and therefore do not call for interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./A-143/K Appeal dismissed.