1997 PLP 891 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 891 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza, Muhammad Munir Khan and Sh. Riaz Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 891 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 891 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza, Muhammad Munir Khan and Sh. Riaz Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 891 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 5th December, 1995.
- Walayat Umer Chaudhry, Advocate for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18‑10‑1995 passed in Criminal M. No. 8/95 in Criminal Appeal No 121 of 1991). (a) Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 7(1)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑Suspension of execution of sentence on the ground of delay in disposal of appeal alone is not possible in appeal under S.7(1) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Art, 1975. (b) Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 7(1)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/149, 436/149 & 307/149‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑ Execution of sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court could not possibly be suspended on the ground of delay alone under S. 7(1) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975‑‑‑Accused stood convicted for triple murder‑‑‑Case had been fixed before High Court for hearing but could not be taken up by that Court‑‑‑High Court had already directed the office to fix the case at an early date‑‑‑Although delay of 4/1‑2 years in disposal of the appeal of the accused was unfortunate. yet they could not be released on bail in the peculiar circumstances of the case‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Walayat Umer Chaudhry, Advocate for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(i) Under section 302/149, P.P.C. (a) Muhammad Iqbal, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Safdar, Shahbaz Ahmed. (b) Three petitioners (ii) under section 436/149, P.P.C. All the accused (iii) Under section 307/149, P.P.C., Ejaz Ahmad Death on three counts and a fine of Rs.2,000 each, or in default two months' R.I. each. Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default three months' R.I. each on three counts. Seven years' R.I . and a fine of Rs.2,000 each or in default three months' R.I. each. Seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 or six months' R.I. Others Three years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs.2,000 or two months' R.I., each.
2. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners tiled appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. They filed applications for suspension of execution of sentences. The last application of the petitioners was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for the suspension of the execution of the sentences of the petitioners on the ground of inordinate delay of more than 4‑1/2 years in disposal of the appeal by the High Court. Learned counsel has argued that although under subsection (2) of section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the High Court was obliged to decide appeal of the petitioners within three months yet it has not decided the same despite more than 4‑1/2 years have passed after their convictions and sentences by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties with care. We find that the suspension of execution of sentence on the ground of delay alone is not possible in appeal under section 7(1) of the Act. The petitioners stand convicted for triple murder. The case was fixed before the Division Bench of the High Court for hearing but could not be taken up because the learned Bench remained busy in other cases, as stated in paragraph II(iii) of the petition for leave to appeal at pages 11/12 of the Paper Book. The High Court has already directed the office to fix the case at an early date. Although the delay of 4‑1/2 years in disposal of appeal of the petitioners is unfortunate yet the petitioners cannot be released on bail in the peculiar circumstances of this case.
5. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused, and the petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑1364/S Leave refused.