REHMAT And Others vs THE STATE And Other
This matter comprises criminal petitions and jail petitions filed against convictions, sentences, and the enhancement of sentences. The core legal question involves the sustainability of the convictions and sentences awarded to the petitioners, as well as the propriety of the sentence enhancement sought by the state or complainants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard the counsel for the parties, noted the withdrawal of one petition, and evaluated the remaining petitions and jail petitions on their merits. The court held that no good grounds for interference were made out by the petitioners and that the jail petitions lacked merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed all four petitions. The key principle laid down is that where petitions against conviction, sentence, or sentence enhancement fail to disclose valid legal grounds or merits warranting interference, the Supreme Court will uphold the lower forum's determination and dismiss the petitions.
- Whether a criminal petition against enhancement of sentence is maintainable without establishing valid grounds for interference?
- Do jail petitions against conviction and sentence warrant interference when found to be without merit?
- What is the consequence when a petitioner withdraws a criminal petition for enhancement of sentence upon instructions?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This order will dispose of: (i)Criminal Petition No. 229 of 1983.
(ii)Criminal Petition No. 230 of 1983 filed by Rehmat etc. And Haji Allah Ditta, respectively, against the enhancement of their sentence; (iii)Jail Petition No. 71-R of 1983; and (iv) Jail Petition No. 58-R of 1983; filed by Allah Rakha and Muhammad Hussain, against their conviction and sentences.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in Criminal Petition No. 229 of 1983 and 230 of 1983. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 229 of 1983 withdrew the petition on instructions from his client. Mr. Nemat Khan, counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 230 of 1983 has not been able to make out any good ground for interference by this Court. The said petitions are therefore, dismissed.
3. We have also gone through the two Jail Petitions mentioned above and find no mere in the same. Consequently these are also dismissed. This disposes of the four petitions. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.