Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNAWAR JAVED VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Sh. Riaz AhmedEhsan Ullah Lila,THE STATE
2003 S C M R 735
2003 S C M R 735
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Sh. Riaz Ahmed, C.J., Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
MUNAWAR JAVED‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Petition No.508/L of 2001, decided on 3rd July, 2002.
(On Appeal from the order, dated 29‑6‑2001 of the Lahore High Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.818 of 1999).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Accused had served out his substantive sentence and only the amount of Diyat of Rs.2,60,000 remained to be paid by him, which he being a poor person was stated to be unable to pay the same in three equal instalments as ordered by the High Court‑‑‑Said order of the High Court was modified by Supreme Court with the direction to the accused to pay the amount of Diyat over a period of three years in equal monthly instalments‑‑‑Petition was disposed of accordingly.
Ehsan Ullah Lila, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 3rd July, 2002.
JUDGMENT
SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J.‑‑‑We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have perused the judgment impugned. As regards merits of the case, we are not inclined to interfere therewith, because on that score the judgment impugned is unexceptionable; inasmuch as, the sentence already undergone by petitioner was considered adequate and appropriate to meet the ends of justice and the amount of `Diyat' amounting to Rs.2,60,000 was maintained and it was allowed to be paid by the petitioner in three equal instalments. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has served out the substantive sentence and only the amount of `Diyat' remains to be paid by him. It is stated that petitioner is a poor person and cannot pay the amount 'Diyat' in three instalments. Taking a lenient view, we would modify the order of the High Court and direct that petitioner shall now pay the amount of `Diyat' over a period of three years in equal monthly instalments. Disposed of.
N.H.Q./M‑637/S Order accordingly.