2008 PLP 1095 (MLD)
SAEED AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1095 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAEED AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1095 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1095 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1095 (MLD) (SAEED AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shoaib Khan Buzdar for Petitioner.
- Mumtaz Hussain Awan, Advocate for Deputy Prosecutor General.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 201 & 109/34
Application for
Accused was convicted and sentenced to five years out of which he had already served out more than a year
No likelihood was of the fixation of appeal in the near future
Allowing application, sentence awarded to accused was suspended and accused was directed to be released on bail.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.
Through this petition under section 426, Cr.P.C., the petitioner Saeed Ahmad seeks suspension of his sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah vide judgment, dated 27-4-2007 in a case F.I.R. No.73, dated 26-3-2006 registered under sections 302/201/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station City Layyah, whereby he was convicted under sections 201/109, P.P.C. and sentenced to him five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5000. In case of default in payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal of the petitioner will be heard along with other co-accused who were convicted and sentence under section 302(b), P.P.C. and essentially will take some time and the petitioner who was awarded the sentence of five years has already served out his sentence of more than a year and that there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in the near future.
3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has opposed this petition by submitting that the petitioner has participated in the occurrence and managed to destroy the proof of murder and the sentence awarded to him is not short one therefore, is not entitled for concession of the suspension of sentence.
4. Be that as it may, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to five years out of which he has already served out more than a year which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State and that there is no likelihood of the fixation of the appeal in the near future as according to the Office report the appeals pertaining to the year, 1996 are being fixed for hearing in the current year.
5. In view of the above, this application is allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is suspended. He is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bounds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judi) of this Court. H: B.T./S-12/L Application allowed.