WAQAR AZEEM vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the refusal of the Lahore High Court to suspend his sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending the disposal of his appeal. The High Court had declined relief on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel required a deeper appreciation of evidence, which was impermissible at the interlocutory stage. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to suspend the sentence. The Supreme Court held that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the discretionary interlocutory order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not lightly interfere with interlocutory orders regarding the suspension of sentences where deeper appreciation of evidence is required.
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the contentions raised require a deeper appreciation of evidence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court declining to suspend a sentence in the absence of good grounds?
- Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The petitioner's grievance is against the refusal by the Lahore High Court to suspend his sentence under section 426, Cr.P.C. Pending disposal of his appeal. The refusal was on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel needed deeper appreciation of evidence which could not be done at that stage.
2. After hearing learned counsel, we are not satisfied that there are good grounds to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the High Court. The petition is dismissed.