1968 SCMR 537 (2) (PLP)
QAMAR SULTANA-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZRAM AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 537 (2) (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J |
| Parties | QAMAR SULTANA-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZRAM AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 537 (2) (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 537 (2) (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 537 (2) (PLP) (QAMAR SULTANA-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AZRAM AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 7th December 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1967/Confirm ation Case No. 42 of 1967). Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Conviction-Sentence of death, on appeal, reduced to transportation for life by High Court Supreme Court would be reluctant to grant Special Leave to Appeal for enhancement of sentence unless petition for purpose moved strictly in accordance with procedural requirements particularly that of limitation-Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXIV, r.
2. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-By this petition, Mst. Qamar Sultana seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court by which the sentence of the respondent Muhammad Azram, for the murder of her brother Ashfaq Ali was reduced from death to transportation for life. The petition is barred by time by 6 days. There is no petition seeking condonation of this delay, but Mst. Qamar Sultana states that it was due to her suffering a physical disability, i.e. she has a defect in one leg. Such an excuse is not valid for extension of limitation. Moreover, the action of the High Court is an assurance of life to the respondent, and this Court will not place his life in jeopardy again, unless in a proceeding brought in strict accordance with the procedural requirements, in particular that of limitation. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.