1989 P Cr (PLP)
SADIQ and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana, J |
| Parties | SADIQ and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Majid Tiwana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (SADIQ and another Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1800), S.302/34‑‑Sentence of imprisonment for life, suspension of‑‑Statutory delay‑‑Appeal not heard within period of 2 years‑ Normal turn not reached‑‑Court not in a position to fix appeal for early hearing‑ Sentence suspended and bail allowed in circumstances. Mrs. Tasnim Akhtar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 1989 in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1987, decided on 26th April, 1989. ‑‑‑S. 426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1800), S.302/34‑‑Sentence of imprisonment for life, suspension of‑‑Statutory delay‑‑Appeal not heard within period of 2 years‑ Normal turn not reached‑‑Court not in a position to fix appeal for early hearing‑ Sentence suspended and bail allowed in circumstances. Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa for Petitioners. Mrs. Tasnim Akhtar for the State. The petitioners/appellants who were convicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Rajanpur vide his judgment, dated 10‑3‑1987, under section 302/34 and were sentenced to imprisonment for life besides some fine, have sought the suspension of their sentence and consequent release on bail on account of the lapse of statutory period of 2 years and their appeal not having been taken up for hearing. The learned State counsel has suggested that it would have been better if the appeal had been fixed for final disposal instead of enlarging the petitioners/appellants on bail. It is a good suggestion but neither the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants seems to be agreeable, nor this Court is in a position to fix the appeal for early hearing as its normal turn has not yet reached. The maximum statutory period for the disposal of appeal has already ' elapsed and the petitioners/appellants in view of the judgment reported as 1986 S C M R 1970 are entitled to the grant of bail. Their sentence is, therefore, suspended and they are granted bail till the decision of the appeal if they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each m the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Rajanpur. S.A./S‑507/L Sentence suspended.