1994 PLP 1176 (SCMR)
AHMAD SUBHAN alias BANA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1176 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, C.J., Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD SUBHAN alias BANA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1176 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1176 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, C.J., Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1176 (SCMR) (AHMAD SUBHAN alias BANA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Farani, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 5th December, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 2‑10‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Misc. No. 2 of 1993 in Crl. Appeal No. 840 of 1992). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 426(1)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑‑Accused had sought suspension of their sentence pending disposal of their appeal in High Court after having been refused such prayer by High Court‑‑‑Petition was found to be misconceived as High Court was siezed of all aspects of the case, the matter being pending there, and to move Supreme Court at such stage against the interlocutory order of High Court was not warranted nor justified‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Nemo for the State
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ.‑‑‑The petitioners have been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They have filed an appeal before the High Court against their conviction and sentence, which has been admitted to regular hearing. They also applied for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. However this prayer was not accepted and their plea in this regard has been dismissed. They have now moved this Court for leave to appeal against the last mentioned order of the High Court and seek suspension of their sentence, pending disposal of their appeal in the High Court.
2. This petition is misconceived. The matter is pending in the High Court and it seized of all aspects of the case. To move this Court at this stage against an interlocutory order of the High Court is not, therefore, warranted nor justified.
3. Dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑1100/S Leave refused.