1992 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Qasim Joya for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1991
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Arts. 3 & 4‑‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑‑Cogent reasons for convicting and sentencing accused were given by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court‑‑‑ Accused had already undergone 8 months of imprisonment‑‑‑Accused did not indulge in sale of narcotics‑‑‑Sentence of imprisonment under gone by accused would adequately meet the ends of justice‑‑‑Sentence of 2 years' R.I. was reduced to one already undergone by accused in circumstances. Shaukat Hussain for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Arts. 3 & 4‑‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑‑Cogent reasons for convicting and sentencing accused were given by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court‑‑‑ Accused had already undergone 8 months of imprisonment‑‑‑Accused did not indulge in sale of narcotics‑‑‑Sentence of imprisonment under gone by accused would adequately meet the ends of justice‑‑‑Sentence of 2 years' R.I. was reduced to one already undergone by accused in circumstances. Ghulam Qasim Joya for Petitioner. Shaukat Hussain for the State. Date of hearing: 21st May, 1991 Petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal, was sent up for trial by Police Station City Sargodha, for an offence under section 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. The trial Cour vide its judgment dated 26‑7‑1990, convicted and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default six months' R.I. Convict appealed. Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide his judgment dated 4‑9‑1990, dismissed the appeal. In the present revision the petitioner impugn the judgments of both the Courts below. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire case is fake. The petitioner was already in custody of the police but in the instant case he was shown to have been present outside and then apprehended. Argues that there are material discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses, therefore, no conviction could be awarded on such an evidence. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner has already undergone more than eight months of his imprisonment and being the sole earning member of the family may not be sent behind the bar but the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the contentions.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the judgment impugned. Both the Courts below had given cogent reasons for convicting and sentencing the petitioner. Last contention of learned counsel for the petitioner however, requires consideration. The petitioner has undergone more than eight months of imprisonment. There is no allegation that he had indulged in the sale of narcotics. In these circumstances, I feel sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him would adequately meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is maintained. Petition is disposed of in these terms. SA./M‑3034/L Order accordingly.