1984PCr (PLP)
RASHID- Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam, J |
| Parties | RASHID- Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984PCr (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 1984PCr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984PCr (PLP) (RASHID- Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Bashir Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 426 (1)-Suspension of sentence-Contention that petitioner could not be convicted because his co-accused on similar charges has already been acquitted by trial Court besides delay of eight days in lodging of F. I. R.-Contention prima facie having force-Sentence suspended. P L D 1967 S C 363 Tel.
Judgment & Decree
S. 426 (1)-Suspension of sentence-Contention that petitioner could not be convicted because his co-accused on similar charges has already been acquitted by trial Court besides delay of eight days in lodging of F. I. R.-Contention prima facie having force-Sentence suspended. P L D 1967 S C 363 Tel. Muhammad Bashir Khan for Petitioner. Petitioner Rashid alongwith his brother Baqir and some others were tried under section 363/366/376/382/148/149, P. P. C. After the trial, Rashid petitioner has been found guilty only of an offence under section 363, P. P. C. and sentenced to five years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer further six months' R. I. He has filed the appeal and also applied for bail. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that besides the delay of eight days in the lodging of the report, the petitioner was not liable to be sentenced under section 363, P: P. C. because by the time Mst. m7ahnaz allegedly came to meet the petitioner, she had already left and was out of the custody of her parents. Learned counsel relied on P L D 1967 S C 363. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner further is That the petitioner could not have been convicted under section 363, P. P. C. be cause on the similar charge, his co-accused have already been acquitted by ,t the trial Court. 3. The submissions made prima facie appear to have force. In the view of matter, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Sahiwal. M. Y. H. Sentence suspended.