Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Respondent: STATE
1988 S C M R 387
1988 S C M R 387
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ
MUHAMMAD ASLAM--Petitioner
versus
THE STATE--Respondent
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.135 of 1987, decided on 22nd November, 1987..
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 12-4-1987 passed in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 1987).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--
--S 426--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302--Interpretation of 5.426- Suspension of sentence--Dismissal of application for suspension of sentence by short order--Plea that impugned order was bad in law inasmuch as it did not give reasons for dismissal, repelled--High Court, under S 426, Cr.P.C. is required to record reasons only when it accepted application for suspension of sentence--Intention of legislature is that convict should not ordinarily be released on bail but if Court does choose to release him on bail, it must record reasons therefore.
A.Basit, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing:. 22nd November, 1987.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 12-4-1987 dismissing his application for suspension of sentence, under section 426 Cr.P.C. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 P.P.C. Feeling aggrieved he has filed an appeal before the Lahore High Court. Alongwith the appeal he filed an application for suspension of sentence, which was dismissed by the High Court a short order which reads as follows:-
"Arguments heard.
2. No good grounds appear for the admission of this petition, which is dismissed in limine.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as it does not give any reasons for dismissing petitioner's application. For this he relied on the wording of S.426(1) Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:-
426. Suspension of sentence pending appeal.--(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond."
A plain reading of the said section would show that the contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is misconceived. The High Court is required by this section to record reasons only where it accepts the application for suspension of sentence. In other words the intention of the legislature is that the convict should not ordinarily be released on bail but if the court does choose to release him on bail it must record reasons therefore.
With the above observation the petition is dismissed as having no merit.
M. I. /M-286/S Petition dismissed.