1986 PLP 2019 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2019 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2019 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2019 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2019 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 27th October, 1986.
- Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 9-7-1986 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 1986).
Art. 185(3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 35--Sentences--Consecutive--Petitioner convicted and sentenced under S. 161, P.P.C. and S. 5(2) of Act (II of 1947), with direction that sentences would run consecutively--Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that direction of Trial Court as confirmed by High Court that two sentences would run consecutively was not in accordance with law. Akhtar Hassan Khan v. The State 1974 S C M R 199 and Niaz Ail v. The State P L D 1961 Lah.269. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code with a fine of Rs.5,000 and to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. He was further convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 5(2)(47) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment more. The trial Court's judgment, dated 22‑4‑1986 clearly directed that both the sentences shall run consecutively. The petitioner filed appeal challenging the trial Court's judgment which was dismissed as per impugned judgment. Hence this petition. 2. We heard the learned counsel on the merits of the case and are not persuaded to grant leave so far as the merit of conviction is concerned. The learned counsel, however. submitted that the direction of the trial Court, as confirmed by the learned High Court, that the two sentences awarded as herein above‑mentioned shall run consecutively is not in accordance with law. Reliance in this connection was placed on the cases of Akhtar Hassan Khan v. The State 1974 S C M R 199 and Niaz Ali v. The State P L D 1961 Lah. 269. 3. The above contention requires examination and leave is accordingly granted on the question of law as indicated above. The appeal shall be heard on the same record. M. I. Leave granted.