1992 P Cr (PLP)
YOUNIS MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | YOUNIS MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 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: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (YOUNIS MASIH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Waheed-ud-Din Virk for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.411
Accused was convicted and sentenced for 2 years for possessing stolen paddy worth only Rs.2,300
Sentence was not in consonance with established principles of _ law
Accused had undergone 6 months' R.I.
Sentence already suffered by accused being sufficient to meet the ends of justice was reduced accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Having been accused of offences punishable under sections 379 and 411 of the P.P.C. as also ,of offence punishable under section 14 of Ordinance VI of 1979, through F.I.R. No.372/86 of P.S. Saddar Okara, the petitioner was finally convicted under section 411, P.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. vide judgment, dated 24-5-1990 of a learned M.I.C. at Okara.
2. The appeal against the said conviction and sentence which was filed by the present petitioner before the Sessions Court at Okara failed through a judgment, dated 3-7-1991 of a learned A.S.J. at Okara.
3. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks annulment of the conviction and the sentence recorded against him as abovementioned.
4. Faced with the concurrent finding of guilt recorded against the present petitioner, his learned counsel elected not to contest the said conviction and chose to pray only for reduction in the sentence imposed on the petitioner.
5. The accusation against the petitioner was that he was found in possession of 20 maunds of paddy crop valuing about Rs.2,300 which was stolen property.
6. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel that the punishment of two years' R.I. for being in possession of stolen paddy worth only Rs.2,300 is not in consonance with the established principles of law and the administration of justice.
7. The petitioner has already served about six months imprisonment in jail including the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P:C.
8. I find that the imprisonment already suffered by the petitioner is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
9. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction recorded against the petitioner, the sentence of two year`s', R.I. awarded to him is reduced to the I g term of imprisonment already-undergone by him.'
10. He shall, therefore, be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. SA./Y-4/L Order accordingly.