1985 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ ‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 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 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Aslam Chatha for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 354‑‑Accused convicted on basis of ample evidence on record‑ Accused not challenging conviction but simply requesting for reduction in sentence‑‑Accused being first offender‑‑Sentence reduced from one year to six months. Altar Muhammad Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. M. Aslam Chatha for Petitioners. Altar Muhammad Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1984. The facts giving rise to this revision are that Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Hussain were tried by Magistrate under section
354. P.P.C. for out‑raging the modesty of Mst. Malkan wife of Sher Muhammad, P.W. on 7‑2‑1983. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioners under section 354, P.P.C. and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default thereof to further R.I. for two months each.
2. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of their conviction was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 11‑3‑1964, hence this revision.
3. The learned counsel has not challanged the conviction of the petitioners and rightly so because there is ample evidence on record to prove that the petitioners had out‑raged the modesty of Mst. Malkan. The learned counsel simply requested for reduction in sentence. In the circumstances of the case, I feel inclined to reduce sentence of imprisonment from one year's R.I. to six months' R.I. because the petitioners are the first offenders. The fine of Rs.1,000 and sentence in default thereof is maintained. With this reduction in the sentence the revision is disposed of. M.Y.H. Petition accepted