1975 PLP 231 (SCMR)
FALAK SHER-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP 231 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FALAK SHER-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 231 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 231 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 231 (SCMR) (FALAK SHER-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abid Ali Buttar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 9th May 1974.
- Ch. Abid Ali Buttar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Abid Ali Buttar, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner has contended that the sentence awarded its this cane is very excessive and for this reason the learned Single Judge of the High Court would have suspended the sentence. According to him, the normal sentence in such cases is three years. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. We are not inclined to express any view whether ill such cases normal sentence is three years. In our opinion, the question whether the sentence should have been suspended was a discretionary matter and in the circumstances of the case, the High Court teas exercised the discretion properly. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 20th April 197.1, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1974, in Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 1973). -- S. 304, Part II--Sentence
Question whether sentence excessive and liable to be suspenders
Discretionary matter-High Court having exercised discretion properly, no ground for interference, held, made out. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner has been sentenced for a period of seven years and to pay fl tine of Rs. 1,000 under section 304, Part 11, P. P. C. Tile petitioner applied for suspension of sentence to Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 19:1, which .was dismissed on the 16th March 1974. The petitioner seeks permission to tile air appeal against the said order. Ch. Abid Ali Buttar, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner has contended that the sentence awarded its this cane is very excessive and for this reason the learned Single Judge of the High Court would have suspended the sentence. According to him, the normal sentence in such cases is three years. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. We are not inclined to express any view whether ill such cases normal sentence is three years. In our opinion, the question whether the sentence should have been suspended was a discretionary matter and in the circumstances of the case, the High Court teas exercised the discretion properly. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.