1986 PLP 1627 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ITTEFAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1627 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---S. 302/307/34--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.35(2), proviso (a)--Murder--Sentences of imprisonment for life awarded on two counts- No direction made for concurrent running of sentences--Consecutive running of such sentences being violative of Proviso (a) to S.35(2), Cr.P. C. omission rectified and sentences ordered to run concurrently.- Sentence. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ITTEFAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1627 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1627 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---S. 302/307/34--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.35(2), proviso (a)--Murder--Sentences of imprisonment for life awarded on two counts- No direction made for concurrent running of sentences--Consecutive running of such sentences being violative of Proviso (a) to S.35(2), Cr.P. C. omission rectified and sentences ordered to run concurrently.- Sentence. bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1627 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ITTEFAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302/307/34--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.35(2), proviso (a)--Murder--Sentences of imprisonment for life awarded on two counts- No direction made for concurrent running of sentences--Consecutive running of such sentences being violative of Proviso (a) to S.35(2), Cr.P. C. omission rectified and sentences ordered to run concurrently.- [Sentence]. Javed Shaikh v. The State 1985 SCMR 153 and Criminal Review Petition No. 4-R of 1985 ref. M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
While restoring the order of the trial Court, no direction was made for the concurrent running of the sentences of imprisonment for life on two counts under section 302, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. and the sentences of imprisonment awarded again on two counts under section 307, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. This error crept in because the trial Court had awarded death sentences to the petitioner. The consecutive running of the sentences is violative of Proviso (a) to section 35(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Reference in this regard may be made to Javed Shaikh v. The State 1985 SCMR
153. In one other case namely Criminal Review Petition No. 4‑R of 1985, there was also an omission and this Court had ordered for the concurrent running of sentences of imprisonment. Accordingly, we, in the interest of justice, direct that all these sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently. M. I. Order accordingly.