| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 582 2015 SLD 582 2015 MLD 183 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. S-163 and S-156 of 2013, decided on 6th January, 2014
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Zakir Hussain Bughio, Mehboob Ali Abro and Sikandar Ali for Appellants (in Crminal Appeal No. S-163 of 2013). Farhad Ali Abro for Appellants (in Crminal Appeal No. S-156 of 2013). Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, A.P.G. for the State
Criminal Appeals Nos. S-163 and S-156 of 2013, decided on 6th January, 2014
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Zakir Hussain Bughio, Mehboob Ali Abro and Sikandar Ali for Appellants (in Crminal Appeal No. S-163 of 2013). Farhad Ali Abro for Appellants (in Crminal Appeal No. S-156 of 2013). Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, A.P.G. for the State
MEHBOOB ALI and another
VS
The STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 426,497,540
Law: Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, (XVIII of 2010)
Section: 3
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 426 & 497---Application for suspension of sentence and bail application---Scope for suspension of sentence under S.426, Cr.P.C., was narrow and not wider than the parameters of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Deeper appreciation of evidence, while deciding bail application or application for suspension of sentence, was not permissible under the law; and only tentative assessment was allowed---Question of further inquiry in matter of S.497, Cr.P.C. was to be seen while in matter of S.426, Cr.P.C., the patent illegality in the , was to be noticed---Provision of S.426, Cr.P.C., did not permit to consider the manner of trial, but required the appellate court to consider the material, available on record in shape of evidence. Suo Motu case No.16 of 2011 along with CMAs 2013 PLD SC 443 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 426---Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act (XVIII of 2010), S.3---Encroachment---Application for suspension of sentence---Applicants had never challenged the jurisdiction or authority of Lower Court in conducting the trial of the case---Trial Court had examined the witnesses, who were not cross-examined by applicants; and even the Trial Court allowed the application under S.540, Cr.P.C., but applicants did not challenge the statements of the witnesses---Counsel for applicants, had failed to point out any material illegality in the impugned ---Application for suspension of sentence, being devoid of merits, was dismissed; with direction to prepare paper book within 15 days and thereafter fix it for regular hearing, according to roster. ORDER SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.- Through this common order, I intend to dispose of applications under section 426 Cr.P.C. filed in above captioned appeals, as same pertains to the same judgment. 2. Precisely, the relevant facts are that Ali Zulfiqar, Mukhtiarkar Qasimabad lodged F.I.R. on 26-10-2013; contending therein that Tapedar Muhammad Bachal of Deh Qasimdabad reported that Survey No. 107 is the property of Revenue Employees Society, whereas Survey No 200 is property of HDA. In between both survey numbers, there is a government plot admeasuring…
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