Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeal No. 59 in Criminal Petition No. 155 of 1984, decided on 26th May, 1984.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23‑4‑1984, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2/84 in Criminal Appeal No. 149/82).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). Pension of sentence‑Period of two elapsing since filing of appeal by petitioner in High Court‑Record of case not yet printed and likelihood of appeal being fixed for final hearing for quite some time‑Held, case was fit for suspension of petitioner's sentence under section 426, Cr. P. C.‑Petition converted into appeal, sentence suspended and petitioner admitted to bail.‑[Bail].
Maqbul Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
M. A. Bajwva, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Date of hearing : 26th May, 1984.
.‑Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Zaman, petitioners, seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23‑4‑1984, dismissing their application under section 426, Cr. P. C. for suspension of their sentence.
2. We issued notice to the State and have heard the learned counsel for both sides.
3. The facts, briefly, are that the petitioners have been convicted under section 302,134, P. P. C, and both of them were sentenced to imprisonment, for life. They filed an appeal before the High Court which is pending; decision. Alongwith the appeal they also applied under section 426, Cr. P.C. for suspension of their sentences which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
4. We were informed that a period of more than 2 years has passed but the appeal has not yet been fixed for hearing. We, therefore, issued notice to the State.
5. It was admitted by the State counsel that a period of 2 years has passed since the appeal was filed in the High Court and even the record of this case has not yet been printed. It was also admitted that printing of the record may take about one more year. As such we feel that there is no likelihood of the appeal being fixed for final hearing for quite sometime. We are, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case for suspension of the sentence of the petitioners under section 426, Cr. P. C.
Having heard the counsel for both sides, we convert the petition int
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer