1984 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YAMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YAMIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Baqi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 411-Sentence, reduction in-Petitioner not a previous convict and amount involved Rs. 41 only - Sentence of one year's R 1. reduced to six months' R: I. in circumstances. -[Sentence]. Shah Nawaz for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Baqi for Petitioner. Shah Nawaz for the State. Date of hearing: 4th June, 1983. Muhammad Yamin petitioner was convicted under section 411,. P. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. 1. for one year, vide judgment, dated 30th January 1983 of the Magistrate Section 30, Jhang. He filed an appeal in the Sessions Court but it was dismissed on 12th February, 1983. He has challenged the aforesaid orders through this revision petition.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 30th August, 1982 the petitioner removed a handkerchief containing Rs. 41 from the pocket of Muhammad Ramzan complainant. Muhammad Munir A. S. I., P. W. 4 apprehended him when be was being chased by the complainant and recovered the stolen money from his possession.
3. At the admission stage the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being first offender should have been released on probation under the provisions of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 and this petition was admitted to consider this question. The learned counsel now submits that in the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is excessive and prays for reduction.
4. Having gone through the record I find that the conviction of the petitioner is based on cogent evidence. The question of sentence, however, needs consideration. The petitioner is not a previous convict and the amount involved is Rs. 41 only. In the circumstances the sentence of R.
1. B for one year is excessive and the same is reduced to R. I. for six months. The petitioner shall also be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. S. G. D. Order accordingly.