1995 P Cr (PLP)
HAMEEDULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAMEEDULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (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 1995 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: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (HAMEEDULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner. Nafees Ahmed Ansari, A.A: G. For the State.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 382-B & 561-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.304, Part I
Benefit ofS.382-B, Cr.P.C. was awarded to the accused as the same had not been adhered to by High Court while giving the final judgment subject to payment of amount of fine as well as compensation.
Judgment & Decree
CH. GHULAM SARWAR, J.
Hameedullah, petitioner, being convicted under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. by this Court in an appeal on three counts and being sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 and in default whereof to suffer three years' R.I. has made this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for the grant of benefit of period during which the petitioner remained as under-trial prisoner as provided under section 382-B, Cr.P.C., the same request having been refused to the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, Layyah vide his judgment, dated 4-10-1992.
2. It is contended that the provisions contained in section 382-B, Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature and the convicts are entitled to the said benefit as a matter of right. Reliance on this point has been placed upon a pronouncement made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Ramzan arid 3 others v. The State PLD 1992 SC 11.
3. This application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
4. After having heard both sides, we are inclined to award the benefit as provided under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. to the petitioner in this case, as the A same has not been adhered to by this Court while giving the final judgment subject to the payment of amount of fine as well as compensation. N.H.Q./H-138/L Petition allowed.