2007 PLP 992 (SCMR)
Malik ATTIQUE — Petitioner Versus SHOAIB alias LABBA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 992 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | Malik ATTIQUE — Petitioner Versus SHOAIB alias LABBA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 992 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 992 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 992 (SCMR) (Malik ATTIQUE — Petitioner Versus SHOAIB alias LABBA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzaal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Mian Atta-ur-Rehman Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Khurram Latif Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court with Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 11th December, 2006.
- Chaudhry M. Sadiq, Additional Advocate-General Punjab for the State.
- 5. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Afzaal Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Khurram Latif Khosa, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the respondent as well as Chaudhry Muhammad Sadiq, Additional Advocate-General Punjab for the State. The grounds which weighed with the learned Division Bench of the High Court for suspension of sentence of the respondent appear to be that as per ocular account respondent was attributed only ineffective firing in air and that hearing of the appeal would consume a great deal of time.?
Headnotes / Summary
S. 300
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Qatl-i-Amd
Petitioner was aggrieved by order of High Court suspending death sentence of respondent in an appeal against conviction and death sentence awarded for committing act of Qatl-i-Amd
Grounds which weighed with Division Bench of the High Court for suspension of sentence of respondent appeared to be that as per. ocular account respondent was attributed only ineffective firing in air and that hearing of appeal would consume a great deal of time
No ground for interference with exercise of discretion of the High Court was made out as it did not suffer from any serious illegality, legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction
Since the High Court was seized with the appeal of respondent and co-convicts, it could not be said that by suspending the sentence, it acted without jurisdiction
No ground having been made out for the grant of leave to appeal, petition was dismissed. Chaudhry M. Sadiq, Additional Advocate-General Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by High Court order, dated 11-7-2005 suspending death sentence of respondent-Shoaib alias Labba in an appeal against conviction and death sentence for committing act of Qatl-i-Amd.
2. Apart from the respondent, Shafqat Hussain, Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Anwar, Zulfiqar Ahmad, Saiful Malook and Bashiran Bibi were tried for the commission of Qatl-i-Amd of them, death sentence was awarded to respondents Shoaib and Muhammad Anwar while Muhammad Sarwar was sentenced to life imprisonment. Co-accused-Zulfiqar Ahmad, to whom active part in the commission of the crime was attributed and co-accused Shafqat Hussain who allegedly fired in air were acquitted by trial Court. Muhammad Anwar, Shoaib and Muhammad Sarwar have appealed against their conviction and sentence which is sub judice before a Division Bench of High Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to state whether acquittal of Zulfiqar Ahmad and Shoaib has been challenged by the petitioner before the High Court.
5. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Afzaal Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and Mr. Khurram Latif Khosa, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the respondent as well as Chaudhry Muhammad Sadiq, Additional Advocate-General Punjab for the State. The grounds which weighed with the learned Division Bench of the High Court for suspension of sentence of the respondent appear to be that as per ocular account respondent was attributed only ineffective firing in air and that hearing of the appeal would consume a great deal of time.?
6. After hearing learned counsel, we are satisfied that no ground for interference with the exercise of discretion by the High Court is made out, as it does not suffer from any serious illegality, legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction. Since the High Court is seized with the appeal of the respondent and co-convicts, it cannot be said that by suspending the sentence it acted without jurisdiction.
7. No ground is, thus, made out for the grant of leave. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As the respondent was taken into custody after suspending the impugned order, he shall be released forthwith. H.B.T./A-18/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.