1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Baqi for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 411‑‑Sentence, adequacy of‑‑Accused not previous convict, found in possession of stolen currency notes valuing Rs.400 and purse of complainant‑‑Sentence of 2 years' R.I. reduced to one year's R.I. to meet ends of justice in circumstances.‑‑[Sentence]. Syed Zulfiqar Haider for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Baqi for Appellant. Syed Zulfiqar Haider for the State. The facts giving rise to this revision, briefly, are that Muhammad Akram petitioner was tried under section 379/411, P.P.C. The learned trial Court convicted him on 16‑9‑1987 and sentenced to two years' R.I. on each count with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while setting aside the conviction and sentence under section 379, P.P.C. maintained the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court under section 411, P.P.C., hence this revision.
2. On 28‑7‑1987 the revision was admitted on question of sentence only.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a previous convict and, in the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court is excessive and harsh. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this revision.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties with care. I find that the petitioner is not a previous convict; that the allegations against him are that he was found in possession of stolen currency notes valuing Rs.400 and a purse of Muhammad Fazil, complainant and that the sentence in the circumstances of the case seems to be excessive. I feel that the sentence of one year's R.I. would meet the case. The sentence of two years R.I. is therefore reduced to one year's R.I. Disposed of accordingly. S.A.‑/M‑713/L Sentence reduced.