1982 SCMR 629 (PLP)
MIAN-KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1982 SCMR 629 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | MIAN-KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 SCMR 629 (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 1982 SCMR 629 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 SCMR 629 (PLP) (MIAN-KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Afzal Wattoo Advocate Supreme Court With Iqbal Ahmed, Qureshi, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 1st February, 1982,
- M. Afzal Wattoo Advocate Supreme Court With Iqbal Ahmed, Qureshi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 30-9-1981, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 663 of 1979- and Murder Reference No. 169 of 1979).
S. 498-Bail-High Court reducing sentence to one already under gone but enhancing fine-Prayed that substantive sentence of imprison ment having come to an end petitioner remained suffering sentence in default of payment of fine hence entitled to be released on bail till decision of petition for leave to appeal-Deposit of fine as pointed out by Court, not being agreed to by any one an petitioner's behalf, no good ground for grant of bail held, made out. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑‑Mian Khan petitioner was tried along with some others. and convicted under sections 302 and 307, P. P. C: He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to undergo further R. I. for one year. Under section 34, P. I. C. he was sentenced to 3 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default of payment thereof he was ordered to undergo six months' R. I.
2. On appeal the High Court acquitted him of the offence under section 302, P. P. C. and altered his conviction from Ss. 307, P. P. C. to
326. P. P. C. and it was ordered that the sentence already suffered by him would meet the ends of justice. It, however, enhanced the fine to Rs. 5,
000. On recovery the fine was ordered to be paid as compensation to Maqsood Ahmad P. W. the victim of the assault.
3. Mian Khan petitioner has filed a petition for leave to appeal, along with which he has filed the present application for grant of bail.
4. It is contended on his behalf that his substantive sentence of imprisonment came to an end on its being reduced to that already undergone but he is now suffering the sentence in default of payment of fine and requests to be released on bail till the decision of the main petition.
5. It was pointed out to his counsel that it is open to the petitioner to deposit the fine, for non‑payment of which he is undergoing the imprisonment, and in case his appeal ultimately succeeds the amount would be refunded to him.
6. The learned counsel consulted his client (presumably a relative of the petitioner) who was present in Court in person. It appeared that he was not prepared to deposit the fine but, all the same, pressed for bail in respect of imprisonment in lieu of the default in payment of the fine on the ground that the sentence may expire before the petition for leave or the appeal is decided.
7. In the circumstances of this case we do not consider it a good ground for grant of bail to the petitioner. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.