1988 P Cr (PLP)
SHABBIR AHMAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | SHABBIR AHMAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (SHABBIR AHMAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Ahmad Malik for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 7th October, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 409‑‑Sentences, concurrent running of‑‑Accused praying for passing orders that sentences awarded to him in two different cases on same date by same Judge should run concurrently‑‑Request reasonable‑‑Order passed accordingly. S.D. Qureshi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 409‑‑Sentences, concurrent running of‑‑Accused praying for passing orders that sentences awarded to him in two different cases on same date by same Judge should run concurrently‑‑Request reasonable‑‑Order passed accordingly. Ali Ahmad Malik for Appellant. S.D. Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing: 7th October, 1987. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 22‑3‑1987 convicted Shabbir Ahmad Appellant under section 409, P.P.C. and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default six months R.I. It was directed that the fine if realised be paid to the Services Hospital, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel has not challenged the conviction and rightly so because there is sufficient reliable prosecution evidence which the appellant could not rebut and which proves that the appellant had criminally misappropriated Rs.2,674.72. Learned counsel has requested that the sentence awarded to the appellant in this case be ordered to run concurrently with the sentence of two years R.I. awarded to him in another case under section 409, P.P.C. on the same date by the same Judge. The request appears to be reasonable. It is directed that the sentence of six months R.I. awarded to the appellant in this case will run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment of two years R.I. awarded to him in another case under section 409, P.P.C. (F.I.R. No.51/1980) registered at Police Station Lytton Road, Lahore by the same Judge on the same date. M. Y. H./S‑161/L Order accordingly.