1977 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1977 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Jabbar Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Jabbar Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Sharif for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 29th June 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal trial‑ ‑‑ Sentence‑Mitigation‑Petitioner suffering agony of protracted trial of two years and further serving out 3 months in jail out of total sentence of 6 months‑‑Petition taken up after lapse of 10 years‑Sentence already undergone, held, would serve ends of justice, in circumstances.‑[Punjab Excise Act (I of 1914), S. 61]. [Sentence]. Mehr Ghulam Ali Mobashir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Kh. Muhammad Sharif for Petitioner. Mehr Ghulam Ali Mobashir for the State. Date of hearing : 29th June 1976. Muhammad Ashraf petitioner was convicted and sentenced to six months' R. I. under section 61/1/14 of the Excise Act vide judgment of Sheikh Rashid Ahmad, Magistrate Section 30, Lahore, dated. 31‑3‑1966. His appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore was dismissed on 30‑4‑1966, and his conviction and sentence was maintained.
2. Hence, this revision petition.
3. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Ashraf petitioner was caught red‑handed while he was in possession of two tins of liquor by Muhammad Saeed Khan, A. S. I. who alongwith some police officials was on patrol duty near Corporation Garden Inside Bhati Gate, Lahore, from where the accused/petitioner was passing at the relevant time. Some sample from those tins was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner who certified that the liquor was illicit one. The petitioner was ultimately challaned under the Excise Act, as he had no licence for the same.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and have perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner while not controverting the merits of the case, has submitted that the petitioner had already undergone half of his sentence i. e., three months' R. I. out of the total sentence of six months' R. I., therefore, it will serve no useful purpose to send the petitioner behind the bars once again after a lapse of ten years.
5. I have given my anxious thought to the contention of the learner counsel and find it forceful. The petitioner besides being remained in jail for three months, also suffered the agony of protracted trial of two years. He was released on bail on 12‑5‑1966 and to send him behind the bars once again, will revive in himself criminal propensities particularly when lot of water had flown under the bridges. I am of the opinion that it would be not safe to send the petitioner to jail after a lapse of ten years. Accordingly, while dismissing the revision petition and maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, I reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him. Since he is on bail, he is discharged of his bail bonds. Order accordingly.