1989 PLP 885(1) (MLD)
PERVAIZ AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE-‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 885(1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | PERVAIZ AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE-‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 885(1) (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 885(1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 885(1) (MLD) (PERVAIZ AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE-‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Miss Gulshan Ara Alam and Muhammad Ibrahim Khalil for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑Accused was convicted to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000‑‑Sentence awarded to accused was short and appeal filed by accused was not likely come up for hearing in near future‑‑Sentence was suspended. Miss Yasmeen Saigal~for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1989, decided on 27th March, 1989. ‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑Accused was convicted to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000‑‑Sentence awarded to accused was short and appeal filed by accused was not likely come up for hearing in near future‑‑Sentence was suspended. Miss Gulshan Ara Alam and Muhammad Ibrahim Khalil for Petitioner. Miss Yasmeen Saigal~for the State. The petitioner stands convicted to four months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.3,
000. Since the sentence is short and the appeal is not likely to come up for A hearing in the near future, therefore, the sentence is suspended, provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.5,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./P‑66/L Petition allowed.