1977 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 3 OTHERS — ‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1977 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Saleem Mazhar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 3 OTHERS — ‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal trial |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal trial as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saleem Mazhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 3 OTHERS — ‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdus Samad Hashmi for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 1st July 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Conviction recorded more than 10 year ago and revision coming up for hearing after about 11 years‑
Sentence already undergone, held, would meet ends of justice, in circumstances. [Sentence]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Abdus Samad Hashmi for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 1st July 1976. Four petitioners along with Manzoor (since acquitted) were tried under section 325/148/149, P. P. C. by Syed Fazal Hussain. Magistrate, Ist Class, Gujrat who vide his judgment dated 6‑10‑65 convicted the four petitioners under section 325/34, P. P. C. and sentenced each of them to 11 months R. I. Manzoor, however, was acquitted.
2. The convicts filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat who dismissed their appeal vide his judgment dated 30‑10‑
65. Hence this revision petition. .
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the State. The petitioners were allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 12‑11‑65.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the conviction was recorded more than 10 years ago and the revision has come up for hearing after a lapse of 10 years and 8 months and sentence already under gone would meet the ends of justice.
5. I see force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. I maintain the conviction and reduce the sentence to a period already undergone this above modification in the sentence the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioners shall be discharged from their bail bonds. Order accordingly.