PCRLJ 1988

1988 P (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHAFI SHAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.531 of 1987, decided on 24th November, 1987.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Abdul Waheed, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1988 P (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Abdul Waheed, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD SHAFI SHAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P (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 1988 P (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Abdul Waheed, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI SHAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

Representation

  • Raja Mohammad Anwar for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409‑‑Sentence, suspension of‑‑Turn of appeal likely to take quite long due to heavy back‑log‑ Execution of sentence suspended, in circumstances. Khudadad Barqi for the State.

Judgment & Decree

S.426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409‑‑Sentence, suspension of‑‑Turn of appeal likely to take quite long due to heavy back‑log‑ Execution of sentence suspended, in circumstances. Raja Mohammad Anwar for Petitioner. Khudadad Barqi for the State. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑This is a petition for suspension of sentence of Muhammad Shafi Shad petitioner who has been convicted under section 409, P.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs.45,000. 2. The ground's urged for the suspension of sentence by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the alleged defalcated amount had been deposited by the brother of the petitioner and the hearing of this appeal is not in sight in the near future. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. In view of the heavy back‑log, the turn of this appeal is likely to take quite long, therefore, we suspend the sentence of the) petitioner subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. S.G.D./M‑462/L Sentence suspended.