1991 P Cr (PLP)
REHMAT ULLAH and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REHMAT ULLAH and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 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 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (REHMAT ULLAH and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Irshadullah Chatha for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 323 & 324/34
Quantum of sentence-- Accused had faced hardships of protracted trial for 11 years and had undergone about 3 months imprisonment
Sentence was reduced to one already undergone by accused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioners were convicted by Magistrate First Class, Toba Tek Singh, to one year R.I. each under section 324/34, P.P.C. and six months' R.I. each under section 323/34, P.P.C. It was, however, directed that the sentences under section 324/323/34 shall 'run concurrently. They were further directed to pay compensation of Rs.500 each or in default R.I. for six months. It was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.100 each to Ismatullah injured P.W or in default R.I. for one month each. They appealed. Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tak Singh, vide his judgment dated 4-5-1983, dismissed the appeal with the modification that in default of payment RS.5(X) they shall undergo R.I. for three months each. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submitted that the occurrence took place in tile year 1981 and eversince then they have been facing the hardship of trial. Submitted that they have undergone about three months' imprisonment, which would be sufficient. Learned counsel for the State has no objection. Keeping in view that eleven years have gone by yet the proceedings, against the petitioners have not been concluded, I feel this fact alone requires some leniency. Therefore, while dismissing the revision, I reduce the sentence to tile period already undergone by them. The revision is dismissed. S.A./R-286/L Order accordingly.