1985 P Cr (PLP)
ALBERT MASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ALBERT MASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (ALBERT MASIH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Agha Taj Muhammad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 324‑‑Sentence‑‑Conviction of accused not challenged‑‑‑only reduction of sentence sought‑‑Sentence of co‑accused against whom allegations were identical, having been reduced from two years, to 9 months‑‑Accused, held, should be treated at per with his co‑accused‑ Sentence of accused also reduced from two years to 9 months to circumstances.‑‑[ Sentence]. Shabbir Lali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 324‑‑Sentence‑‑Conviction of accused not challenged‑‑‑only reduction of sentence sought‑‑Sentence of co‑accused against whom allegations were identical, having been reduced from two years, to 9 months‑‑Accused, held, should be treated at per with his co‑accused‑ Sentence of accused also reduced from two years to 9 months to circumstances.‑‑[ Sentence]. Agha Taj Muhammad for Petitioner. Shabbir Lali for the State. The facts giving rise to this present revision are that Albert Masih and others were tried under Ss. 307/366 and 376/511, P.P.C. by Magistrate Section 30, Samundri. On the conclusion of the trial Mst. Zeenat co‑accused was acquitted but Albert petitioner and Sarwar co‑accused were convicted under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. The appeal filed by the petitioner failed on 1‑11‑1984, hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction. He has requested for reduction in the sentence on the ground that the sentence of Sarwar co‑convict has already been reduced by this Court from two years' R.I. to 9 months' R.I. The learned counsel for the State as not opposed the prayer.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that since the sentence of co‑convict against whom the allegations were identical, has been reduced from two years I to 9 months, the petitioner should also be treated at par with him. The sentence of the petitioner is therefore reduced from two years R.I. to 9 months' R.I. H.A.K. Revision partly accepted.