Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

RASHID versus STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CR PC) Section 426 (1) Sentencing is the argument that the applicant cannot be punished because his partner has already been acquitted by the trial court on similar charges. Apart from the delay of eight days in maintaining the FIR, his first person is also required to be suspended

1984PCr.LJ1138(1)

[Lahore]

Before Abdul Shakurul Salam, J

RASHID- Petitioner

versus

THE STATE--Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1981, decided on 8th April, 1981.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-

-- S. 426 (1)-Suspension of sentence-Contention that petitioner could not be convicted because his co-accused on similar charges has already been acquitted by trial Court besides delay of eight days in lodging of F. I. R.-Contention prima facie having force-Sentence suspended.

P L D 1967 S C 363 Tel.

Muhammad Bashir Khan for Petitioner.

ORDER

Petitioner Rashid alongwith his brother Baqir and some others were tried under section 363/366/376/382/148/149, P. P. C. After the trial, Rashid petitioner has been found guilty only of an offence under section 363, P. P. C. and sentenced to five years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer further six months' R. I. He has filed the appeal and also applied for bail.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that besides the delay of eight days in the lodging of the report, the petitioner was not liable to be sentenced under section 363, P: P. C. because by the time Mst. m7ahnaz allegedly came to meet the petitioner, she had already left and was out of the custody of her parents. Learned counsel relied on P L D 1967 S C 363. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner further is That the petitioner could not have been convicted under section 363, P. P. C. be cause on the similar charge, his co-accused have already been acquitted by ,t the trial Court.

3. The submissions made prima facie appear to have force. In the view of matter, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Sahiwal.

M. Y. H. Sentence suspended.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocates contact from Gujranwala lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.