MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 252 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State Ss. 200 & 426(2B)---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXIII, R. 8---Supreme Court Rules, 1956 [since repealed], O. XXIV, R. 5-B---Government of India Act, 1935, Ss. 205 & 209(c)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd and rioting armed with deadly weapons---Suspension of sentence---Historic review---Accused persons were convicted in private complaint case for committing Qatl-i-amd and were sentenced to imprisonment for life---Accused persons sought suspension of their sentences---Validity---Through S. 205 of Government of India Act, 1935, when High Court certified to file appeal before Federal Court which was a special leave to appeal to Federal Court and when by virtue of S. 209(3) of Government of India Act, 1935, Federal Court was authorized to stay execution of any sentence on filing an appeal from judgment of High Court, there was no necessity to insert subsection (2B) in S. 426, Cr.P.C. because purpose was already served---As such the provision was introduced in year 1946 for those convicts for whom special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted by High Court and it was learnt that Court of His Majesty in Council was 6000 miles away, therefore, it was expected that by the time appeal was filed, lest convict should not serve out his entire sentence---His Majesty in Council remained part of Federal Court Rules, because on granting leave to appeal by the Federal Court one could file appeal before His Majesty in Council against Judgment of Federal Court---Federal Court under O. XIX, R. 7 of Federal Court Rules, 1950, was authorized to stay execution of sentence pending appeal against judgment of High Court---With the promulgation of Constitution of Pakistan, 1956, remedy before His Majesty in Council was eliminated but appellate forum for High Court was designated as Supreme Court---Similarly, under O. XXIV, R. 5-B of Supreme Court Rules, 1956 and O. XXIII, R. 8, of Supreme Court Rules, 1980, power to stay execution of any sentence was available to the Supreme Court at the time when petition for leave to appeal was filed or leave was granted by Supreme Court---There was no need to have recourse to High court for suspension of sentence---Word 'may' used in S. 426(2B), Cr.P.C., made it discretionary to grant bail to the seekers and High Court could well refuse the same---High Court declined to invoke jurisdiction under S. 426(2B), Cr.P.C.---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 252 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State S. 426(2B)---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXIII, R. 2---Suspension of sentence---Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court---Scope---Provision of S. 426(2B), Cr.P.C., remains applicable only when High Court certifies that case involves a substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution and a person earns a right of appeal to Supreme Court which of course is a "special leave to appeal" as mentioned in S. 426(2B), Cr.P.C---If High court refuses to issue such certificate, the leave to appeal (not special leave to appeal) is available to aggrieved person as mentioned in O. XXIII, R. 2 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 252 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ