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 Petitions Nos. 176 and 266 of 1986, decided on 30th July, 1986.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11‑5‑1986 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1/86 in Criminal Appeal No. 47/86).
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.426‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against order suspending sentence‑‑Individual act of accused made basis for suspending his conviction and sentence when not only firing but also common intention that he shared with others stood proved against him‑‑Purpose and scope of powers conferred under S.426, Criminal Procedure Code, requiring further examination and calling for more authoritative pronouncement‑‑Leave to appeal granted.
Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 30th July, 1986.
‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 11th of May, 1.986 whereby the respondent No. 1 convicted of an offence under section 302, P. P. C . and sentenced to life imprisonment has been admitted to bail suspending his conviction and sentence under section 426, Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that without adverting to the question of common intention which was held established by the trial Court, the injury caused by fire‑arm by the respondent No. 1 could not alone be made the basis for suspending his conviction and sentence. According to the learned counsel no attention whatsoever has been paid to the community of interest, the planning and the common intention which made the respondent equally responsible for the offence.
Leave granted.
We find that individual act of the respondent No.1 has been made the basis for suspending his conviction and sentence when what stood proved against him was that not only he fired but also the common intention that he shared with others. That aspect of the matter has not been taken note of.
We consider that the purpose and scope of the powers conferred under section 426 Cr.P.C. requires further examination and may call for a more authoritative pronouncement. Hence leave to appeal is granted. This appeal be made ready to be heard along with Criminal Petition No. 266 of 1986 in which leave to appeal has been granted to examine an identical question of law.
M.Y.H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer