Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑19 of 1974, decided on 4th September 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 12ti1 December 1973, in Miscellaneous No. 10007 of 1973).
‑‑ S. 426‑High Court's order passed on application under S. 426 though brief yet High Court found to have applied its mind and exercised discretion against petitioners‑ Question being discretionary, held, not open to challenge in Supreme Court‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).
M.I. Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 4th September 1974.
‑The petitioners, alongwith two others, namely, Waryam and Ramzan were committed to the Court of Session at Nawabahah by the Resident Magistrate, Moro, to stand their trial under sections 326, 324/34, P. P. C. on the 22nd May, 1971. The petitioners were convicted by the learned trial Judge under section 326 read with section 34 P. P, C. and were sentenced to 8 years' R. I. each. They were also sentenced is pay fine of Rs. 1,000 each. The petitioners arid their co‑accused filed an appeal in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi. Alongwith the appeal, they moved an application under, section 426, Cr. P. C. for the suspension of the sentence. The appeal was admitted by a learned Single Judge and notice was issued on the application under section 426 Cr. P. C. to the State counsel. The application was heard by a learned Single Judge on the 12th December, 1973 and the petitioners' application for suspension of sentence was rejected but the co‑accused were admitted to bail. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
Mr. M. I. Memon, learned Advocate‑on‑Record, has contended that the order of the learned Single Judge dated the 12th December, 1973 gives no reason for rejecting the application of the petitioners under section 426, Cr. P. C. According to him, it is not a speaking order. We have gone through the order. It is a brief one. We are, however, satisfied that the High Court has applied its mind and exercised the discretion against the petitioners. The question being discretionary is not open to challenge in this Court. We, therefore, do not consider this a tit case for interference.
The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer