1982 PLP 1177 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMED AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1177 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --S. 426‑Suspension of sentence‑Appeal against conviction admitted to hearing but prayer for suspension of sentence refused‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with discretion exercised by Judge in Chamber.‑Bail. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMED AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1177 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 1177 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --S. 426‑Suspension of sentence‑Appeal against conviction admitted to hearing but prayer for suspension of sentence refused‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with discretion exercised by Judge in Chamber.‑Bail. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1177 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMED AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 20th June, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of Lahore High Court, dated 19‑5‑1982 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 1982). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ --S. 426‑Suspension of sentence‑Appeal against conviction admitted to hearing but prayer for suspension of sentence refused‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with discretion exercised by Judge in Chamber.‑[Bail]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑The petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court dated 19‑5‑1982, rejecting their bail application under section 426, Cr. P. C.
2. They were tried and convicted under sections 366/376, P. P. C. and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The maximum sentence awarded being more than 4 years' R. I. they filed an appeal before the High Court, which was admitted to hearing. They also applied for suspension of their sentence. That application was, however, dismissed ‑vide the impugned order, Hence the present petition. 3 We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order, but we are not persuaded to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in Chamber. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.