1985 PLP 661 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 661 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 661 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 661 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 661 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Inamul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 20-6-1983, passed in Criminal Revision No.122 of 1983).
Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.497--Petitioner convicted and sentenced under section 497, P.P.C.--On appeal matter remanded to afford him opportunity to cross-examine complainant--Magistrate in remand enhanced sentence/fine without giving reason--Aspect of not affording opportunity to accused having escaped notice of Courts in appeal/ revision, Supreme Court set aside enhanced sentence and restored one originally imposed--Petition converted into appeal and partly allowed. Petitioner through Jail.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ By order dated 22‑12‑1984, the petitioner's petition for leave to appeal as regards his conviction under section 497, P.P.C. was rejected but notice was issued to the State to show why the original sentence imposed on the petitioner vide order, dated 17‑10‑1981 should not be restored.
2. In response to the notice, Mr. Mian Inamul Haq has appeared for the State. He supports the restoration of the original sentence.
3. The petitioner had been originally sentenced to R.I. for two years plus a fine of Rs.500 or in default in payment of the same to further S.I. for three months. On his appeal the matter had been remanded in order to afford him opportunity to re‑cross‑examine the complainant. While remanding, no observation had been made that the sentence was inadequate. Yet the learned Magistrate, in remand, sentenced him to R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs.4,000 or in default to further R.I. for one year. The learned Magistrate for awarding a more severe sentence gave no reason. This aspect of the matter has escaped the notice of the Courts in the appeal and the revision that followed. In these circumstance, the petition is converted into appeal and partly allowed to the extent that the sentence subsequently awarded on 2‑3‑1983 is set aside and the one originally imposed on 17‑10‑1981, that is, R.I. for two years plus a fine of 88.500 or in default in payment of the same further S.I. for three months is restored. The appellant shall be informed through the Jail authorities. M.I. Order accordingly