SCMR 1993

1993 PLP 1991 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Cr. Review Petitions Nos.4 and 17‑L,of 1993, decided on 31st May, 1993.
Honorable Judges
Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Saad Saood Jan and
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1993 PLP 1991 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Saad Saood Jan and
Parties MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1991 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1991 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Saad Saood Jan and.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1991 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr.R.P.4‑L of 1993).
  • Nawaab Saeed Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Cr.R.P.17‑L of 1993).
  • Date of hearing: 31st May, 1993.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the judgment/order of this Court dated 2‑2‑1993 in Cr. Appeal No. 268‑L of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 382‑B‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Accused at the time of hearing of the petitions for leave to appeal were announced to have been given the benefit of S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C. in the computation of their sentences, but the formal order did not contain such direction‑‑‑Review applications filed by accused for the correction of formal order were allowed and on rehearing of the petitions the same were converted iato appeals and the accused were directed to be given the benefit of S382‑B, Cr.P.C. in the computation of their sentences. Nemo for the State.

Judgment & Decree

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑On the last occasion when these petitions for special leave to appeal came up for hearing in this Court it was announced that the petitioners would be given the benefit of section 382‑B, Criminal Procedure Code, in the computation of their sentences. However, the formal order did not contain this direction. The petitioners filed review applications for the correction of the formal order. The review applications have since been allowed and the petitions have been re‑heard.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Salahuddin who appears on behalf of the State we convert these petitions into appeals and direct that in the computation of their sentences the petitioners shall be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B ibid. N.H.Q./M‑1787/S Applications allowed.