1985 PLP 802 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias ACHHA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 802 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias ACHHA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 802 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 802 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 802 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias ACHHA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Siddique for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 307--Complainant injured witness patched up matter with accused and having pardoned him--Offence being non-compoundable, prayer of acquittal of accused refused in circumstances.
S. 307--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439--Sentence- Accused having undergone sentence of one year--Complainant injured witness patching up matter with accused and pardoning accused at trial stage--Accused not acquitted as offence was non-compoundable In view of pardon granted to accused by complainant, held, keeping of accused behind bars would not be in interest of justice--Sentence reduced to one already undergone. Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This revision was admitted just to consider the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant Abdul Waheed, the injured person, told . the trial Court that he had patched up the matter with the petitioner. It was submitted that on this ground alone, the matter should have been dropped and the petitioner acquitted. The offence being non-compoundable, the trial Court did not give effect to the statement of the complainant against his conviction. The petitioner filed appeal. That too was dismissed. Before me, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the' first informant excused the petitioner, he may be acquitted. This I am not inclined to do because the offence is non-compound able. Nevertheless, I think that in view of the stance of the first informant especially when he has pardoned the accused petitioner, it will not be in the interest of justice to keep him behind the bars. He B has already spent about a year in jail. His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. He shall be set at liberty, forthwith, if not required in any other case. . The sentence of fine is maintained. That shall be paid to Abdul Waheed, the injured witness, as compensation. H . A . K . Revision partly accepted.