1991 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 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: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Ihtesham Qadir Shah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 3 & 4
Conviction was not challenged-- Accused remained in jail for about 5-1/2 months after rejection of his appeal-- Agony of protracted trial coupled with sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice
Sentence of 13 months was reduced to one already undergone in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Ihtesham Qadir Shah for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 31st March, 1991. Muhammad Siddiq, petitioner, stands convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and sentenced to one year and one month's R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof three months' R.1.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction and rightly so because there is ample evidence in proof of the charge against the petitioner. He has only requested for the reduction in sentence.
3. No one has appeared for the State. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that after the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner remained in jail fur about five and a half months before he could be released on bail by this Court in this revision application. The petitioner was sent to jail thrice. In these circumstances, I feel that the agony of protracted trial coupled with the imprisonment suffered by him as an under-trial prisoner and as a convict would meet the case. So the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to one already undergone by him. The fine of Rs.1,000 is also remitted. Disposed of accordingly. SA./M-2915/L Order accordingly.