1997 PLP 2231 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 2231 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 2231 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 2231 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 2231 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irshad Hussain Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.426(1)‑‑‑Dangerous Drugs Act (II of 1930), S.14‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑ Suspension of sentence was urged on the grounds that only Sessions Judge having been notified as the Trial Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 for the offences of such nature Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to try the accused, that the accused being driver of the car from which Charas in question was allegedly recovered, he was entitled to leniency in the sentence being a carrier and that no public witness had witnessed the alleged recovery‑‑‑Important questions with regard to the competency of the Trial Court having been raised, sentence of accused was suspended and he was released on bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.426(1)‑‑‑Dangerous Drugs Act (II of 1930), S.14‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3‑‑‑Suspension of sentence‑‑ Suspension of sentence was urged on the grounds that only Sessions Judge having been notified as the Trial Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995 for the offences of such nature Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to try the accused, that the accused being driver of the car from which Charas in question was allegedly recovered, he was entitled to leniency in the sentence being a carrier and that no public witness had witnessed the alleged recovery‑‑‑Important questions with regard to the competency of the Trial Court having been raised, sentence of accused was suspended and he was released on bail accordingly. Irshad Hussain Bhatti for Petitioner. Muhammad Arif alias Labha was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore who by judgment dated 8‑2‑1996 convicted him under section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act and under Article 3 of the Prohibition Order, 1979 and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment plus fine and stripes. The maximum sentence was life imprisonment under section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
2. Suspension of sentence is urged on the grounds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to try the accused as under the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance, only Sessions Judge had been notified as the Trial Court for offences of the above nature. It is further stated that the petitioner being driver of the car from which the Charas in question had been allegedly recovered was entitled to leniency in the sentence, being a carrier. Additionally, it is stated that there is no public witness to the alleged recovery.
3. Since important questions with regard to the competency of the learned trial Court have been raised, I grant the application and suspend the sentence of the petitioner on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. one lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. The learned Court shall ensure that the sureties are men of means and have definite/permanent addresses. N.H.Q./M‑266/L Sentence suspended.