1991 P Cr (PLP)
SARANG and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE- -Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARANG and others — Petitioners 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) (SARANG and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE- -Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tariq Ahmad Farooqi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 440, 447 & 148/149
Effect of compromise
No case for interference in the judgment of conviction was made out
Parties had compromised and were living in peace
Complainant had pardoned accused--Accused had already undergone about one month imprisonment
Sentence of 1 year's R.I. was ' reduced to one already undergone in circumstances,
Judgment & Decree
The prosecution case at the trial was that the accused armed with various weapons including gun and carbine had forcibly taken the possession of the land which was in possession of the complainant and thrown away the articles laying in the Kotha belonging to the complainant.
2. The learned Magistrate vide judgment, dated 12-11-1981 convicted all of them under sections 148/149, 447/149 and 440/149, P.P.C. and awarded sentences as follows:-- Under section 148/149, P.P.C. One year's R.I. Under section 447/149, P.P.C. Three months' R.I. Under section 440/149, P.P.C. One year's R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The appeal filed by them before the Sessions Court was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide order dated 12-9-1982. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant against the convicts and imposed a fine of Rs.500 on each of them. The fine, on realization was directed to be paid to the complainant.
4. The convicts have challenged their convictions and sentences through the instant petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not chosen to argue the petition on merits. He has stated that the parties have compromised and he will be satisfied if the sentences of the petitioners be reduced to that of already undergone. He has also produced a writing purported to have been signed by Ahmad Sher complainant and attested by Chairman, Union Council No.58, Mitha Lak (Sargodha). The complainant has not been produced. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has asserted that he has been instructed to say that a genuine compromise has taken place and the parties are already living in peace.
6. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the convictions of the petitioners, I have gone through the record. In my view, no case for interference by way of exercise of revisional power is made out in so far as it pertains to the judgment of conviction by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The convictions of the petitioners arc, therefore maintain. It appears from the record that the petitioners in all have undergone about one month's R.I. each after their convictions by the trial Court and release on bail by this Court after suspension of their sentences. No body was injured in the occurrence. The complainant by way of compromise has pardoned the petitioners. The families are stated to be living in peace. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for reduction of their sentences to that of already undergone. The sentences of fine imposed by the Appellate Court are also remitted. Petitioners are on bail. Their sureties shall stand discharged. S.A./S-896/L Sentence reduced.