1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ alias BAB00 — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Allahdino G. Memon, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ alias BAB00 — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Allahdino G. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ alias BAB00 — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 382-B--Provisions of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C., whether mandatory- Accused admittedly teenager at time of commission of offence--Trial Court and even High Court while hearing appeal ignoring provisions of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.--Supreme Court also dismissing appeal of accused--Provisions of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. being mandatory, benefit given to accused in circumstances. Muhammad -Hayat Junejo for Applicant. S. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad -Hayat Junejo for Applicant. S. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.-G. for the State. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that the applicant was a teenager at the time when he was convicted by the Trial Court, but unfortunately he was not given any benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Even in the High Court the learned Judge who decided his appeal did not consider this aspect of the case. He has further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and he has not been given any benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed learned A.A.-G. appearing for the State has contended that in view of the fact that the provision is mandatory and the applicant /appellant was teenager when he was convicted. He has no objection if the benefit of provision of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is given to the applicant. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel an have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment passed by this Court. It is an admitted position that the applicant was about 16 years of age at the time the alleged incident took place. Unfortunately the learned trial Judge did not consider this aspect of the case at the time of awarding sentence to the applicant. Even in the High Court learned Judge who decided the appeal did not take note of the provisions of section 382-B , Cr. P . C . In view of the fact that the provision of section 382-B, Cr.P.C, are mandatory and the applicant was not given any benefit on this aspect by the trial Court as well as by this Court, and his appear before the Supreme Court having been dismissed, I direct that the applicant is entitled to benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. in respect of the period he has remained in jail as undertrial prisoner and after his conviction. The application stands disposed of. S. A. /M-379/ K Order accordingly.