1982 PLP 662 (SCMR)
ABDUL RASHID ETC.-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 662 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307/149 & 325/149 - Contention that convicts could not be held guilty and in any case High Court could not while altering conviction from S. 307/149 to one under Ss. 325/149 enhance sentence, contravening thereby S. 423 (1) (b) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-Held: Substantial questions of law raised and require examination-Leave to appeal granted-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 4231970 S C M R 840(b). Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafi-ur-Rehman and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID ETC.-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Cr. P. S. L. A. No. 294/81, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 662 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cr. P. S. L. A. No. 294/81, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 662 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307/149 & 325/149 - Contention that convicts could not be held guilty and in any case High Court could not while altering conviction from S. 307/149 to one under Ss. 325/149 enhance sentence, contravening thereby S. 423 (1) (b) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-Held: Substantial questions of law raised and require examination-Leave to appeal granted-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 4231970 S C M R 840(b). Sentence. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafi-ur-Rehman and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 662 (SCMR) (ABDUL RASHID ETC.-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemat Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 1982.
- Nemat Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1-6-81 in Criminal Appeal No. 164/1980). . Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307/149 & 325/149 - Contention that convicts could not be held guilty and in any case High Court could not while altering conviction from S. 307/149 to one under Ss. 325/149 enhance sentence, contravening thereby S. 423 (1) (b) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-Held: Substantial questions of law raised and require examination-Leave to appeal granted-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 4231970 S C M R 840(b). [Sentence]. Dalmir v. State 1970 S C M R 840 ref. Nemo for the State. Cr. P. S. L. A. No. 305/81 Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑Abdur Rashid along with four others was convicted by the trial Court under sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148, P. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment for the first, three years' R. I. for the second and one year's R. I. for the third offence apart from fine imposed. On appeal the High Court altered their convictions to one under sec tion 325/149 (two counts) and sentenced them to seven years' R. I. On each count apart from fine, which on realization was to be paid as compensation. Their conviction and sentence under section 148, P. P. C. was maintained.
2. The complainant, as well as the convicts, have by separate petitions sought leave to appeal against this judgment of the High Court. The complainant's case is that the convicts having caused as many as thirteen injuries by lathis to one and twelve to the other resulting in the death of the victim could not be held to have intended anything different from the death of the victim. He has relied on Dalmir v. State (1970 SCMR 840), and plain language of section 300, P. P. C. The learned counsel for the convicts has on the other hand pleaded that the convicts could not be held guilty at all, and in any case the High Court could not while altering conviction from 307/149, P. P. C. to one under section 325/149, enhance the sentence from three years' R. I. to seven years' R. I., thereby contravening section 423(l)(b) of Criminal procedure Code.
3. We find that substantial questions of law require examination and leave to appeal is granted in both the petitions. As the sentence may expire, in the meantime, let these appeals be heard within a year from today. Leave granted.