1998 PLP 1365 (SCMR)
Haji MAULA BAKHSH and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1365 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid, Munawar Ahmad Mirza and Abdur Rehman Khan. JJ |
| Parties | Haji MAULA BAKHSH and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1365 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1365 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid, Munawar Ahmad Mirza and Abdur Rehman Khan. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1365 (SCMR) (Haji MAULA BAKHSH and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Javid Aziz Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 1998.
- NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---Haji Maula Bakhsh (since deceased) and Allah Ditta had filed Jail Petition for leave No.214 of 1991 against the impugned judgment dated 18-8-1990 of the Lahore High Court whereby the sentence of death awarded to Haji Maula Bakhsh was commuted to imprisonment for life and the life sentence awarded to Allah Ditta by the trial Court was maintained and the revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of his sentence was dismissed. The petition filed by the appellants for leave came up for hearing before this Court on 19-2-1994 when the Court was informed that petitioner Haji Maula Bakhsh died his natural death on 11-2-1994 and, therefore, his jail petition for leave abated leave was, however, granted to other petitioner Allah Ditta. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court for appellant Allah Ditta: He has pressed this appeal only for grant of benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
- 2. We have heard learned counsel on the above question and also Mr.Javid Aziz Sindhu, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18‑8‑1990 of the Lahore High Court in Cr.A. No. 88/87 and M.R. No. 146/87). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constiiution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to accused to consider whether, if at all, he was not entitled to the complete right of private defence of person and property; that he was not entitled to the benefit of extending the right of private defence and lesser punishment under S. 304, P.P.C. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.382‑B‑‑‑Benefit of S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C., grant of‑‑‑Counsel for accused had pressed the appeal only for grant of benefit under S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused had raised the plea of private defence of person and property in his defence on which leave to appeal had been granted to him by Supreme Court‑‑‑High Court had not considered the plea of accused for extending the benefit of S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C. to him in the impugned judgment‑‑‑Prosecution had not opposed the said plea of accused‑‑‑Benefit under S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was extended to accused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.
Haji Maula Bakhsh (since deceased) and Allah Ditta had filed Jail Petition for leave No.214 of 1991 against the impugned judgment dated 18-8-1990 of the Lahore High Court whereby the sentence of death awarded to Haji Maula Bakhsh was commuted to imprisonment for life and the life sentence awarded to Allah Ditta by the trial Court was maintained and the revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of his sentence was dismissed. The petition filed by the appellants for leave came up for hearing before this Court on 19-2-1994 when the Court was informed that petitioner Haji Maula Bakhsh died his natural death on 11-2-1994 and, therefore, his jail petition for leave abated leave was, however, granted to other petitioner Allah Ditta. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned Advocate Supreme Court for appellant Allah Ditta: He has pressed this appeal only for grant of benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. We have heard learned counsel on the above question and also Mr.Javid Aziz Sindhu, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the State.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for appellant Allah Ditta that benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was wrongly denied to the convict by the trial Court and the High Court has not considered this question in the impugned judgment. In this case, the appellant had raised the plea of private defence of person and property and the question on which leave was granted by this Court to him was whether if at all Allah Ditta was not entitled to the complete right of private defence of person and property was he not entitled to the benefit of extending the right of private defence and lesser punishment under section 304, P. P. C.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not opposed the plea on behalf of appellant Allah Ditta for extending the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. to him. We also find that the High Court has not considered this plea in the impugned judgment.
5. In the circumstances of this case, we are of the view that appellant Allah Ditta was entitled to grant of benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. and accordingly this appeal is partly allowed to the extent that such benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is extended to him while computing the sentence undergone by him, the period spent by him while facing trial, will be taken into consideration. Criminal Appeal No.44 of 1994 stands disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./M-126/S Order accordingly.