2002 PLP 1504 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AMIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1504 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | Ali Muhammad Baloch, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1504 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1504 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: Ali Muhammad Baloch, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1504 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AMIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amjad Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.426‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement. of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4‑‑‑Petition for suspension of sentence pending appeal‑‑‑Petitioner had contended that imprisonment challenged in appeal was only for 3 years and such period being very short same might pass during the pendency of appeal and that 3 Kgs. Charas and 1 Kg. opium having already been destroyed at time of passing judgment by Trial Court, it could not be held a valid ground for conviction‑‑‑Other contentions raised by the petitioner required examination and assessment of evidence on record‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Held, contention that appeal would be decided after a period beyond 3 years, was ill‑founded as appeal was fresh which was less than 2 months old and would definitely be taken up and decided much earlier than period of imprisonment‑‑‑Other contentions raised by petitioner required deeper appreciation and assessment of evidence on facts as well as on law which could not be done as appeal which had reached stage of regular hearing was not fixed for that purpose‑‑‑When such application involved same questions calling for decision in appeal, it was advisable not to prejudice the case at such stage. Muhammad Sharif Janjua for the State
Judgment & Decree
Amjad Ali for Petitioner. Muhammad Sharif Janjua for the State This appeal was admitted on 22‑4‑2002 challenging the judgment dated 10‑4‑2002. The learned counsel for the appellant raised many pleas in support of his petition under section 426, Cr.P.C. and contended that the imprisonment challenged was only 3 years and that sentence being very short he apprehended that the same might pass during the pendency of this appeal. Further contention of the counsel was that property viz. 3 Kgs. Charas and 1 Kg. Opium was already destroyed at the time of the impugned judgment, hence it could not be held as valid ground for conviction. He also raised certain other contentions which require examination and assessment of the evidence on the record. As regard the first apprehension of the learned counsel that sentence is so short that appeal will be decided after a period beyond 3 years, is ill‑founded. as I am sure that this is a fresh appeal which is less than 2 months old and shall definitely be taken up and decided much early than the period of imprisonment. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant require deeper appreciation and assessment of the evidence on facts as well as on law, which cannot be done as the main appeal which has reached the stage of regular hearing is not fixed for that purpose. Beside, when the bail application involves the same question calling for decision in appeal, it is advisable not to prejudge the case at bail stage. The result is that the petition for suspension of sentence is dismissed, with the direction to the office to fix this case for regular hearing as early as possible under the rules. H.B.T./70/FSC Order accordingly.