1990 P Cr (PLP)
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 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: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 411/75
Prosecution case was successfully proved and no except on to conviction could be taken
Occurrence dated back to 1978 and accused was convicted in 1979
Accused had undergone seven months imprisonment which would meet the ends of justice
Not in the interest of justice to send accused to jail after 10 years
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Ihsan Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 19th September 1989. The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that petitioner, Muhammad Sharif, was tried by Magistrate Section 30, Kasur and convicted him to 4 years' R.I., and fine of Rs.5,000 for an offence under section 411/75, P.P.C. He filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence which came up for hearing before an Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, who vide his judgment, dated 11-3-1979, reduced the sentence of the petitioner from 4 years to 2 years' ' R.I. In the present revision the petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against him has not been proved at all. Submits that the petitioner could not bee legally convicted for an offence under section 411, P.P.C. because no case with regard to the theft of buffalo recovered from the petitioner was registered though the complainant asserted that the buffalo was lost about six months before his making statement. Contends that the petitioner was convicted in the year 1979 ands he has undergone about 7 months of imprisonment, therefore, the sentence already undergone would adequately meet the ends of justice.
2. I have heard learned counsel and gone through the evidence N with his assistance. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, no exception i can be taken. The prosecution has successfully proved its case against the petitioner A beyond any doubt. He was found in possession of a buffalo regarding which he could not give any explanation and the complainant asserted that the buffalo was his property, which was stolen earlier. As far as the contention of learned counsel that the occurrence took place in the year 1978 and he was convicted in January, 1979, whereas his appeal also failed therefore, he may not be sent back to serve the remaining portion of his sentence, requires consideration. 1 have calculated that the petitioner has undergone about 7 months of imprisonment, which in the circumstances of the case would at meet the ends of justice, therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to send back the petitioner to serve the remaining portion of his sentence, after a period of ten years.
3. For what has been discussed above. I reduce the sentences of the petitioner to one year already undergone. With this reduction in the sentence, therevision is disposed of. S.A./M-1859/L Sentence reduced