PCRLJ 1983

1983 P Cr (PLP)

LAL MUHAMMAD‑ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2188‑B of 1981, decided on 2nd Septem ber, 1981.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Munir Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1983 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Munir Khan, J
Parties LAL MUHAMMAD‑ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 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 1983 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (LAL MUHAMMAD‑ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Kh. Muhammad Afzal for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 426(1‑A)‑Sentence, suspension ofStatutory period passed

Appeal not decided as yet without any fault of petitioner‑Execution of sentence suspended in circumstances. Sh. Muhammad Nawaz for the State.

Judgment & Decree

S. 426(1‑A)‑Sentence, suspension ofStatutory period passed

Appeal not decided as yet without any fault of petitioner‑Execution of sentence suspended in circumstances. Kh. Muhammad Afzal for Petitioner. Sh. Muhammad Nawaz for the State. This is an application under section 425, Cr. P. C. for the suspension of the execution of sentence of the petitioners. On 31st July, 1979, they were convicted under section 304 (1), P. P. C. and sentenced to 10 years' R. I. each and a fine of Rs: 1,000 each or in default thereof further R. I. for two months each.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that although the petitioners were convicted on 31st July, 1979 and the statutory period has passed yet the appeal has not been decided without any fault on the part of the petitioners. In these circumstances, the execution of sentence of the petitioners is suspended and they are allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with one surety, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of A. C. Attock. M.Y.M Bail granted.