1986 PLP 1735 (SCMR)
SAGHEER BAIG‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACHHU and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1735 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | SAGHEER BAIG‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACHHU and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1735 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1735 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1735 (SCMR) (SAGHEER BAIG‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACHHU and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th July, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11‑5‑1986 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1/86 in Criminal Appeal No. 47/86). ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against order suspending sentence‑‑Individual act of accused made basis for suspending his conviction and sentence when not only firing but also common intention that he shared with others stood proved against him‑‑Purpose and scope of powers conferred under S.426, Criminal Procedure Code, requiring further examination and calling for more authoritative pronouncement‑‑Leave to appeal granted.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 11th of May, 1.986 whereby the respondent No. 1 convicted of an offence under section 302, P. P. C . and sentenced to life imprisonment has been admitted to bail suspending his conviction and sentence under section 426, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that without adverting to the question of common intention which was held established by the trial Court, the injury caused by fire‑arm by the respondent No. 1 could not alone be made the basis for suspending his conviction and sentence. According to the learned counsel no attention whatsoever has been paid to the community of interest, the planning and the common intention which made the respondent equally responsible for the offence. Leave granted. We find that individual act of the respondent No.1 has been made the basis for suspending his conviction and sentence when what stood proved against him was that not only he fired but also the common intention that he shared with others. That aspect of the matter has not been taken note of. We consider that the purpose and scope of the powers conferred under section 426 Cr.P.C. requires further examination and may call for a more authoritative pronouncement. Hence leave to appeal is granted. This appeal be made ready to be heard along with Criminal Petition No. 266 of 1986 in which leave to appeal has been granted to examine an identical question of law. M.Y.H. Leave granted.