2001 PLP 1251 (MLD)
MUZAFFAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1251 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman and Bashir A. Mujahid, JJ |
| Parties | MUZAFFAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1251 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1251 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman and Bashir A. Mujahid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1251 (MLD) (MUZAFFAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th November, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 426‑‑‑Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)‑‑ Suspension of sentence‑‑‑Suspension of sentence, pending appeal, against conviction, had been sought on the ground that nothing was recovered from the accused during the investigation of the case; that reliable and trustworthy evidence produced by the accused had been ignored by the Trial Court without any plausible reason and that statutory period for the disposal of appeal had expired and the accused had earned the right of bail‑‑‑Huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from the accused‑‑‑Ground's agitated by the accused for suspension of sentence, required deeper appreciation which was not appropriate/persmissible at such stage‑‑Petition for suspension of sentence was dismissed, in circumstances. Sh. Muhammad Naseem Rashid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 426‑‑‑Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)‑‑ Suspension of sentence‑‑‑Suspension of sentence, pending appeal, against conviction, had been sought on the ground that nothing was recovered from the accused during the investigation of the case; that reliable and trustworthy evidence produced by the accused had been ignored by the Trial Court without any plausible reason and that statutory period for the disposal of appeal had expired and the accused had earned the right of bail‑‑‑Huge quantity of narcotics was recovered from the accused‑‑‑Ground's agitated by the accused for suspension of sentence, required deeper appreciation which was not appropriate/persmissible at such stage‑‑Petition for suspension of sentence was dismissed, in circumstances. Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi for Petitioner. Sh. Muhammad Naseem Rashid for the State. Date of hearing: 13th November, 2000. Petitioner Muzaffar Ali son of Muhammad Yousaf was tried by Special Judge, Vehari in case F.I.R. 90 of 1996, dated 16‑5‑1996 registered under section 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station Machiwal, District Vehari, who vide judgment dated 31‑3‑1998 convicted the petitioner under section 9(c) of the ibid Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000 or in default whereof to further undergo two years' R.I. Petitioner was also given benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. Petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No.130 of 1998 challenging the abovesaid judgment which has not yet been decided. Through this petition, pray has been made for the suspension of sentence on the ground that nothing was recovered from the petitioner during the investigation of this case; defence evidence produced by the appellant was reliable and trustworthy, but the same was ignored by trial Court without any plausible reason; statutory period for the disposal of criminal appeal had expired and the petitioner had earned the right of bail. Learned counsel for the State had vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Heard. File perused,
3. Allegedly a huge quantity of Narcotics was recovered from the' petitioner. The grounds agitated for the suspension of sentence require deeper appreciation, which is not appropriate/permissible at this stage. Finding no force in this petition, same stands dismissed. H.B.T./M‑532/L Petition dismissed