| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 1224 2011 SLD 1224 2011 YLR 1512 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1685, 1803 and 1692 of 2006, heard on 16-11-2010.
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Inayatullah Cheema, Ch. Saifullah Warraich and Allah Rakha
Respondent(s) by: Tariq Javed, DDPP
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1685, 1803 and 1692 of 2006, heard on 16-11-2010.
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Inayatullah Cheema, Ch. Saifullah Warraich and Allah Rakha
Respondent(s) by: Tariq Javed, DDPP
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 57,109,337-J,353,380,411,457
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 35,35(2),382B,544A
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7,21
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 337-J, 457, 380, 353, 109 & 411---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7 & 21---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.35---Causing hurt by means of poison, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, theft in dwelling house, assault or criminal force, dishonestly receiving stolen property and terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Main accused was proved to be master mind of the occurrence---Major portion of the looted amount had been recovered from accused--All prosecution witnesses, who were, served intoxicating food, had categorically deposed against the accused---Guilt of said accused having been proved beyond any shadow of doubt, his counsel had not advanced any argument suggesting his innocence in the incident but had only argued with regard to the quantum of sentence and converting sentences awarded to accused from consecutive to concurrent---Accused had rightly been awarded maximum sentence provided for the offences; and he did not deserve any leniency to be shown qua the magnitude of the punishment--Argument of the counsel for accused that accused could not be awarded sentence beyond 14 years and it would be in violation of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of S.35, Cr.P. C. had force--Said legal infirmity arisen in the case, could be rectified, if the sentences awarded to accused on 6 counts, under various offences in one and the same trial were ordered to run concurrently, instead of consecutively---Court had committed illegality by not providing any sentence in case of default in payment of fine imposed upon accused---Trial Court had also failed to provide any sentence in lieu of non-payment of compensation under S.544-A, Cr.P.C.---High Court ordered that, accused would suffer further simple imprisonment for 6 months in such default---Accused was entitled to benefit of S.382-B, Cr. P. C. Javed Shaikh v. The State 1985 SCMR 153; Juma Khan and another v. The State 1986 SCMR 1573; Muhammad Ittefaq v. The State 1986 SCMR 1627; Khan Zairian and another v. The State 1987 SCMR 1382; Faridullah Shah and another v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1945, Mst. Zubaida v. Falak Sher and another 2007 SCMR 548; Shah…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492