2010 PLP 1396 (YLR)
MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1396 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari, J |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1396 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1396 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1396 (YLR) (MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Makhdoom Mashooq Hussain, Shah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.426
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3 & 4
Manufacturing, owning or possessing intoxicant
Suspension of sentences
Application for
Sentence awarded to accused was two years and the revision petition was not going to be fixed for final hearing in the near future-Accepting application, sentence of accused was suspended and he was admitted to bail. Zulfiqar Ali v. The State 1994 SCMR 548 and Muhammad Hanif and another v. The State through Chairman National Accountability Bureau, Karachi 2003 PCr.LJ 161 rel. Syed Mukhtar Masood Bukhari, DDPP for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Cr. M. No.1-B/2009 HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.
Through this application under section 426, Cr.P.C., Munir Ahmad applicant/convict seeks suspension of his sentences awarded to him by the learned magistrate 1st Class, Multan vide judgment dated 16-7-2009.
2. Petitioner Munir Ahmad along with two others was tried by the learned Magistrate for offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, in case F.I.R. No.71/2009, registered at Police Station Jaleelabad, Multan, and through the above said judgment the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Articles 3 and 4 of the Order ibid to two years' R.I. on each count with a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default of payment of the same, to undergo further two months S.I. on each count. All the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence is short and there are no chances of accelerated hearing and disposal of the Criminal Revision petition of the petitioner in the near future and there is every likelihood of acceptance of the revision petition.
4. Learned D.D.P.P. opposes the suspension of sentence of the petitioner and grant of bail on the ground that offence is proved and he has been sentenced according to law.
5. I have heard the parties. It is correct that the sentence of the petitioner is short and the Revision Petition is not going to be fixed for final hearing in the near future, therefore, his sentence should be suspended. For this view I am guided by the Principle laid down by the apex Court in the case reported as Zulfiqar Ali v. The state 1994 SCMR 548 as well as Muhammad Hanif and another v. The State through Chairman National Accountability Bureau, Karachi 2003 PCr.LJ
161. Therefore, this application is accepted, sentence of the petitioner is suspended and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-15/L Sentence suspended.