PLD 1952 Dacca 266 (PLP)
KISMAT ALI‑Accused‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL KADER‑Complainant‑Opposite‑Party
| Citation | PLD 1952 Dacca 266 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Amin Ahmed and Ibrahim, JJ |
| Parties | KISMAT ALI‑Accused‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL KADER‑Complainant‑Opposite‑Party |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in PLD 1952 Dacca 266 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case PLD 1952 Dacca 266 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Amin Ahmed and Ibrahim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: PLD 1952 Dacca 266 (PLP) (KISMAT ALI‑Accused‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL KADER‑Complainant‑Opposite‑Party). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maksum‑ul‑Hakim, for K. Hossain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 408‑Simultaneous sen tences of imprisonment and fine though permissible should not be inflicted, unless necessary in interest of justice. Though it is permissible under section 408 of the Pakistan P. C. to inflict sentence of fine simultaneously with the sub stantive sentence of imprisonment, ordinarily the double sentence should not be inflicted unless necessary in the interest of justice. Islam and another v. King Emperor 35 C W N 519 ref. Nemo for the Crown.
Judgment & Decree
Islam and another v. King Emperor 35 C W N 519 ref. Maksum‑ul‑Hakim, for K. Hossain for Petitioner. Nemo for the Crown. IBRAHIM, J.‑
This rule was issued on the ground of sentence only. The petitioner is the gomosta of the complainant. He was entrusted with cash of Rs. 1,500 for purchase of paddy in the district of Sylhet. After the money was paid the petitioner proceeded to Shamserganj with a boat but he left the boat at Bhairab on the plea that he would go to Shamser ganj by Railway train and directed the boatman to go to Shamserganj. He, however, did not go there. The boatman ultimately returned and reported the whole thing to the complainant. The petitioner was, thereafter, repeatedly asked to return the money but he did not return it. On these facts he was convicted under section 408 of the Pakistan P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months. Though it is permissible under section 408 of the Pakistan P. C. to inflict sentence of fine simultaneously with the sub stantive sentence of imprisonment, ordinarily the double sentence should not be inflicted unless necessary in the interest of justice. The learned counsel has also referred to the case of Islam and another v. King Emperor 35 C W N
519. The learned Magistrate did not award any compensation to the complainant in this case. We do not think, in the circumstances, that there should be double sentence and accordingly we set aside the sentence of fine but uphold the conviction and sentence of imprison ment under section 408 of the Pakistan P. C. The fine should be refunded, if already paid. He will now surrender to his bail bond and serve out the remainder of sentence imposed upon him. The rule is made absolute in these terms. AMIN AHMED, J.‑