PCRLJ 1987

1987 P (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Revision No. 817 of 1971, decided on 15th November, 1981.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Zafarullah, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1987 P (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Zafarullah, J
Parties MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Primary Law West Pakistan Prevention of Gambling Ordinance (I of 1961)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Prevention of Gambling Ordinance (I of 1961)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 P (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

West Pakistan Prevention of Gambling Ordinance (I of 1961)‑‑

Representation

  • Sardar Shah Bokhari for Petitioners.
  • Date of hearing: 15th November, 1981.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑S. 6‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 437‑‑Accused sentenced to one year's R.I.‑‑Revision petition remained pending for more than ten years‑‑Sentence reduced to already undergone in circumstances.‑ [Sentence]. Muhammad Naeem Goreja for the State.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑S. 6‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 437‑‑Accused sentenced to one year's R.I.‑‑Revision petition remained pending for more than ten years‑‑Sentence reduced to already undergone in circumstances.‑ [Sentence]. Sardar Shah Bokhari for Petitioners. Muhammad Naeem Goreja for the State. Date of hearing: 15th November, 1981. The petitioner was sentenced to one year R.I. under the Gambling Act. A period of more than 10 years has passed while the revision petition was pending in this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner will be satisfied if the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone.

2. The revision petition is dismissed but the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone. S. A./4952/L Revision dismissed.