1991 P Cr (PLP)
Hafiz Haji IMDAD ULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Hafiz Haji IMDAD ULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (Hafiz Haji IMDAD ULLAH and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tahir Qureshi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 324/34
Accused had undergone the entire period of their imprisonment
Sentence suffered by accused was considered sufficient, sentence of fine of Rs.2,000 was set aside in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 324/34
Accused had undergone the entire period of their imprisonment
Sentence suffered by accused was considered sufficient, sentence of fine of Rs.2,000 was set aside in circumstances. Tahir Qureshi for Petitioners. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 24th March, 1991. Hafiz Haji Imdad Ullah with his brother Hafiz Ziaullah were tried by Assistant Commissioner, Noorpur Thai, for an offence under section 325/34, P.P.C. The trial Court vide its judgment, dated 26-11-1989 convicted and sentenced each of the petitioners under section 324/34, P.P.C. to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default four months' R.I. each. Both the convicts appealed. The appellate Court vide its judgment, dated 16-4-1990 while dismissing the appeal, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years' R.I. to six months' R.I. each. The fine was increased from Rs.1,000 to Rs.2,000 in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month each. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already undergone the entire period of sentence as they were not bailed out. Submits that in these circumstances the sentence of fine may be set aside because the occurrence had taken place in the year 1987 and since then they are facing the hardships of criminal prosecution. Contends that even otherwise the petitioners are alleged to have caused only simple injuries. Arguments heard. I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners. There was a delay of about seventy days in the registration of case but the same has been explained. The petitioners have undergone the entire period of their sentence of six months which, I feel, is sufficient in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, while dismissing the revision, I accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and while -maintaining the sentence of imprisonment the sentence of fine is set aside. Revision is disposed of. S.A./I/259/L Revision dismissed.