1985 P Cr (PLP)
DOST ALI alias ALI DOST‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | DOST ALI alias ALI DOST‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (DOST ALI alias ALI DOST‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaikh Rehman Bux for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.426‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑During trial District Public Prosecutor moved application for withdraw of case which was allowed by District Magistrate‑‑‑Copy of order placed before High Court‑‑Sentence suspended but accused ordered to deposit compensation amount within ore month.‑ [Bail]. A. Sattar Shaikh, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 682/82 in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1982, decided on 28th June, 1982. ‑‑‑S.426‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑During trial District Public Prosecutor moved application for withdraw of case which was allowed by District Magistrate‑‑‑Copy of order placed before High Court‑‑Sentence suspended but accused ordered to deposit compensation amount within ore month.‑ [Bail]. Shaikh Rehman Bux for Appellant. A. Sattar Shaikh, Addl. A.‑G. for the State. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in fact while trial was going on an application was moved by the District Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the case which was allowed by the District Magistrate. Learned counsel has placed a photo copy of the N order passed by‑the District Magistrate on the application of District Public Prosecutor. In this view of the matter I am inclined to enlarge the accused on bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety and P.R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court but in so far compensation amount of Rs. 2,000 awarded is concerned it is not stayed and the appellant is directed to deposit the same within one month from today before the trial Court failing which his bail will stand cancelled. M. A. K. Bail allowed.