1992 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Sh. Muhammad Zubair, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmad and Sh. Muhammad Zubair, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Abdul Majid Khan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Sentence‑‑‑Accused was in jail for a period of about 4‑1/2 years and had undergone the ordeal of facing two trials‑‑‑Sentence of 7 years' R.I. awarded to accused was reduced to period already undergone by him in circumstances. Saleem Shad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.‑‑‑ The appellant in this case was tried on the charge under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance for having kept‑an unlicensed stengun in his possession. Initially, the appellant was sent up to face his trial before a Magistrate, who found him guilty on the aforesaid charge, and thus, convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years, vide judgment, dated 7‑6‑1990 passed by the learned Magistrate, Shahpur District Sargodha. The appellant was not given the benefit under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. and therefore the appellant filed a petition which was not maintainable before the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, and thus, the appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. While hearing the same, this Court came to the conclusion that the trial by the trial Magistrate was coram non judice inasmuch as, the only Court competent to try this case was the Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975; and accordingly, the case was remanded to the said Court, and vide the judgment, dated 12‑6‑1991, the Presiding Officer, Special Court No.11 constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 found the appellant guilty on the aforesaid charge, and convicted and sentenced, him to undergo R.I. for seven years, and to pay fine of Rs. Fifty thousand, or in default thereof, to further undergo R.I.
2. Aggrieved by his aforesaid conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred this appeal. In course of the hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant does not seriously dispute the conviction of the appellant, but has argued that for a period of four years, five months and 18 days, the appellant is in jail and has undergone the ordeal of facing two trials, therefore, it would be appropriate, that instead of touching the merits of this appeal, the sentence already undergone by the appellant till date should be held as proper punishment.
3. After having heard the learned counsel and perusing the judgments impugned, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, while disposing of this appeal, we hold that the sentence already undergone by the appellant would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice in this case. Consequently, the appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Sentence of fine is set aside. N.H.Q./M‑470/L Sentence reduced.