2003 SCMR 911 (PLP)
GHULAM ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 SCMR 911 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 SCMR 911 (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 2003 SCMR 911 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 SCMR 911 (PLP) (GHULAM ABBAS — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Irshad Ullah Chattha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 8-10-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3-B of 2001 in Criminal Appeal No-. 1944 of 2000).
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S:302=--Constitution of Pakistan 11973), :art. 185(3)
High Court had refused to suspend the sentence of imprisonment for life of accused on the ground that the contentions involved deeper appraisal of evidence which was not permissible under S.426, Cr.P.C.
Discretion had been exercised. by High Court on relevant and valid considerations which needed no interference
Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Nasim Sabir, Addl. A.-G. for the State
Judgment & Decree
S. 426
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S:302=--Constitution of Pakistan 11973), :art. 185(3)
High Court had refused to suspend the sentence of imprisonment for life of accused on the ground that the contentions involved deeper appraisal of evidence which was not permissible under S.426, Cr.P.C.
Discretion had been exercised. by High Court on relevant and valid considerations which needed no interference
Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Ch. Irshad Ullah Chattha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nasim Sabir, Addl. A.-G. for the State Date of hearing: 21st March, 2002. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J,
Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions as noted in paragraph 5 in the impugned judgment for suspension of sentence of life imprisonment of the petitioner. Learned Judge of the High Court held that the consideration of those contentions would involve deeper appraisal of evidence which is not permissible under section 426, Cr.P.C. at the stage of deciding about the question of suspension of sentence.
2. The discretion has been exercised by the learned Judge of the High Court to decline prayer of the suspension of sentence on relevant considerations which are valid, therefore, no case has been made out for E interference by this Court.
3. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. Leave refused.