1995 P Cr (PLP)
FAROOQ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | FAROOQ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 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 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (FAROOQ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia Ullah Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 426(1)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(c)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence pending appeal‑‑‑Contentions that the accused had been sentenced merely on the basis of his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. and that the recovery of the weapon of offence had not been proved needed appreciation of evidence which could not be ventured upon at such stage ‑‑‑Petition was dismissed accordingly. Mian Muhammad Jehangir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 426(1)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(c)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence pending appeal‑‑‑Contentions that the accused had been sentenced merely on the basis of his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. and that the recovery of the weapon of offence had not been proved needed appreciation of evidence which could not be ventured upon at such stage ‑‑‑Petition was dismissed accordingly. Zia Ullah Khan for Petitioner. Mian Muhammad Jehangir for the State. Farooq Ahmed, appellant‑petitioner was convicted under section 302(c), P.P.C. and sentenced to fourteen years' R.I. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 31‑5‑1994. The benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was also given to the petitioner.
2. Through this application, petitioner seeks suspension of sentence on the grounds that he was awarded the sentence merely on the basis of statement A under section 342, Cr.P.C. and that the recovery of weapon of offence has not been proved.
3. I have heard the learned counsel. The contentions raised need appreciation of evidence which cannot be ventured upon at this stage. The I8 application is dismissed. N.H.Q./F‑175/L Petition dismissed.