P L D 1994 Lahore 198 (PLP)
FATEH MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1994 Lahore 198 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Lahore 198 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Lahore 198 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Lahore 198 (PLP) (FATEH MUHAMMAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi for Petitioners. Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 426 (1‑A) (c)‑‑‑Bail is to be allowed if the appeal is not disposed of within two years, but the same can also be refused for the reasons to be recorded. Shahbaz v. The State 1992 SCMR 1903 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑‑S.426 (1‑A)(c)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34 & 307/34‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑Although the statutory period of two years was over, yet the accused were not found entitled to the suspension of their sentence as the office was being directed to fix the appeal within a period of four months for disposal. Shahhaz v. The State 1991 SCMR 1903 ref. Pervaiz Inayat Malik for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.‑‑‑Fateh Muhammad and Khan Muhammad were tried alongwith Gulbaz co‑accused for the murder of Muhammad Riaz deceased and making a murderous assault on Muhammad Mumtaz P.W. with fire‑arms. By judgment dated 26‑11‑1990, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab convicted them under sections 302, 307/34, P.P.C. Fateh Muhammad and Khan Muhammad were awarded imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs.20,000 each or in default to undergo further R.I. for one year each. Under section 307/34, P.P.C., they were awarded five years' R.I. each with a fine, of Rs.5,000 each or in default thereof to further undergo six months' R.I. each. Their co‑accused Gulbaz was awarded death sentence.
2. Fateh Muhammad and Khan Muhammad have applied for suspension of their sentences under section 426(1‑A)(C), Cr.P.C. on the ground that eversince their conviction dated 26‑11‑1990, they are in jail and the appeal, filed by them, has not yet been disposed of.
3. The learned trial Court had adjudged them guilty for the murder of Muhammad Riaz deceased and murderously assaulting Muhammad Mumtaz P.W. with gun shots. However, they were awarded lesser sentence provided for the offence of murder because they were the only sons of their parents.
4. It is a settled proposition of law that bail is to be allowed if the appeal is not disposal of within two years, but the same could also be refused for the reasons to be recorded. In Shahbaz v. The State 1992 SCM R 1903, it was observed that "under section 426 (1‑A), the Court is empowered decline to suspend the sentence or grant bail for any reason, which it may consider just and proper but such reason should have nexus with the paramount object to avert commission of any further offence by the convict".
5. In the present case, although the statutory period is over, nevertheless we do not consider the petitioners entitled to the suspension of sentence because we arc directing the office to fix the appeal within a period of four months. If the appeal is not disposed of within the period, mentioned above, the petitioners may apply again for suspension of sentence. The application is dismissed with the above direction N.H.U./F‑116/L Order accordingly