YLR 2007

2007 PLP 2685 (YLR)

ZAFAR IQBAL and 7 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Revision No.112 of 2005, decided on 14th July, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 2685 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J
Parties ZAFAR IQBAL and 7 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Penal Code (XI V of 1860)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2685 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XI V of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 2685 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2685 (YLR) (ZAFAR IQBAL and 7 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Penal Code (XI V of 1860)

Representation

  • Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi for Petitioners

Headnotes / Summary

S. 392

Appreciation of evidence

Revision petition had been admitted for regular hearing on the ground that according to prosecution witness assailants had muffled their faces, and for that reason no identification parade was conducted

Petitioners had already undergone sufficient period in jail, and there was no possibility of hearing of main revision petition in the near future

Operation of impugned judgment of .conviction was suspended and petitioners would be released on bail. Zahoor Ahmad Chughtai for the State.

Judgment & Decree

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

The petitioners vide judgment dated 26-2-2005 having been found guilty under section 392, P.P.C. were sentenced to three years R.I. each with fine of Rs. 5,000 each by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Layyah while extending them benefit of section .382-B, Cr.P.C. Then the appeal filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid conviction and' sentence was dismissed by -the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karor, District Layyah vide judgment dated 5-3-2005 and this revision petition was filed before this Court. Through the instant application the petitioners seek suspension of the sentence.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main revision petition has been admitted for regular bearing on the ground that according to P.W.3 the assailants were with muffled faces, but no identification parade was conducted. The petitioners have already undergone sufficient period in jail, but P' there is no possibility of hearing of main revision petition in the near future. Hence, the operation of impugned judgment of conviction is, suspended and the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./Z-43/L Order accordingly.