1990SCMR1393 (PLP)
JAMSHED AZAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990SCMR1393 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | JAMSHED AZAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990SCMR1393 (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 1990SCMR1393 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990SCMR1393 (PLP) (JAMSHED AZAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Saleem Sahgol, Advocate Supreme Court with K.M.A. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed on 27‑5‑1989 in Cr. Misc. No. 1‑B of 1989). ‑‑‑‑S. 426‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 326‑‑‑Constitution of‑Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Contentions raised for suspension of sentence of accused during pendency of his appeal before High Court related to reappraisal of evidence and could not be decided without a thorough examination of record‑‑‑Proper stage for raising said contentions was at the time of hearing of main appeal‑‑‑Judgment of trial Court prima facie did not suffer from any legal error‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,(
100. He has tiled an appeal which is pending in the Lahore High Court.
2. The petitioner moved an application before the High Court for suspension of his sentence during the pendency of the appeal. This application was rejected with the observation that the contentions raised in support thereof went to the merits of the case and that it was not possible to examine them at that stage. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
3. Before us also, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised contentions which relate to reappraisal of evidence: These cannot be decided without a thorough examination of the record. The proper stage for raising them is when the main appeal comes up for hearing. Prima facie the judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any legal error. The petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./J‑61/S Petition dismissed.