2011 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 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 2011 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: 2011 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Misbah-ul-Hassan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.35, 382-B & 561-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b)/109
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7
Several sentences
Accused was convicted by Trial Court under Ss. 109/302, P.P.C. and S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment in both the offences
Contention of accused was that sentences imposed upon him should be ordered to run concurrently
Accused was granted benefit of provisions of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. but nowhere in the judgments handed down by Trial Court, High Court as well as by the Supreme Court, it was directed that the certitude of the sentences would run concurrently/simultaneously
High Court directed the jail authorities to count the quantum of sentences in each offence concurrently/simultaneously with the benefit of provisions of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., which had already been granted to accused
Application was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
By filing instant petition under section 561-A read with sections 35 and 397, Cr.P.C., petitioner being condemned has prayed that sentences imposed upon him vide judgment dated 9-7-2001 under sections 109/302, P.P.C. and section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 may be ordered to run concurrently/simultaneously and the jail authorities may also be directed to reckon the quantum of sentences in all the offence at once/concurrently instead of consecutively.
2. Learned counsel upon this has relied upon case titled AURANGZEB AND 2 OTHERS v. THE STATE (PLD 2011 Lahore 25), case titled Mst. ZUBAIDA v. FALAK SHER and others (2007 SCMR 548), case titled SHAH HUSSAIN v. THE STATE (PLD 2009 SC 560 (FB).
3. Learned DPG has not been ale to rebut the arguments but has candidly conceded the instant point of law relying upon the Full Court judgment titled Shah Hussain v. The State.
4. Hearkened and record perused.
5. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide order dated 9-7-2001, his appeal was dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 15-5-2002 and then he could not succeed in obtaining any relief from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, ultimately, he withdrew his appeal from there on 31-10-2002. Petitioner was granted the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. but nowhere in the judgments handed down by the learned trial Court, by this court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, it was directed that the certitude of the sentences shall run concurrently/simultaneously. The codified law is very much clear upon it and the case law referred to supra and relied upon has explicitly provided the benefit to the accused that his sentences should run concurrently. In these circumstances, by accepting the instant petition, jail authorities are directed to count the quantum of sentence in each offence concurrently/simultaneously with the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. which has already been granted to the petitioner. M.H./M-336/L Petition allowed.