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. 143 of 1974, decided on 9th May 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 20th April 197.1, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1974, in Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 1973).
‑‑ S. 304, Part II‑‑Sentence‑‑‑Question whether sentence excessive and liable to be suspenders‑‑‑Discretionary matter‑High Court having exercised discretion properly, no ground for interference, held, made out.
Ch. Abid Ali Buttar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 9th May 1974.
The petitioner has been sentenced for a period of seven years and to pay fl tine of Rs. 1,000 under section 304, Part 11, P. P. C. Tile petitioner applied for suspension of sentence to Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 19:1, which .was dismissed on the 16th March 1974. The petitioner seeks permission to tile air appeal against the said order.
Ch. Abid Ali Buttar, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner has contended that the sentence awarded its this cane is very excessive and for this reason the learned Single Judge of the High Court would have suspended the sentence. According to him, the normal sentence in such cases is three years. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. We are not inclined to express any view whether ill such cases normal sentence is three years. In our opinion, the question whether the sentence should have been suspended was a discretionary matter and in the circumstances of the case, the High Court teas exercised the discretion properly. There is no ground to interfere. 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