Pakistan Case Law
1970 SCMR 884

KABEZ MONDAL AND 7 Others vs The STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1970 SCMR 884
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Revision No. 457 of 1968 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.
Date1970-06-15
Judge(s)Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and M. R. Khan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioners were convicted under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment, a conviction and sentence subsequently affirmed by the Sessions Judge. Upon revision, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioners filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. During the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioners completed their full sentences. When the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the petitioners acknowledged that the petition had become infructuous due to the completion of the sentences and requested to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as having become infructuous. The judgment confirms the principle that where a sentence has been fully served, a petition for special leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed on that ground.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a petition for special leave to appeal become infructuous if the petitioner has served the full sentence imposed?
  • Can a petition be dismissed if the counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press it due to the completion of the sentence?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
infructuous petitionspecial leave to appealcriminal revisionsentence serveddismissal of petition

ORDER

1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioners were tried and. Convicted under section 411 of Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each. This was affirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge. A revision against this in the Nigh Court, however, succeeded in part, as the conviction was upheld but the sentence was reduced from two years to one year's rigorous imprisonment only.

2. This order was passed on the 5th of June 1969, and the petitioners filed a petition for special leave to appeal in this Court on the 6th August 1969. An application for bail was put in along with the petition but bail was refused on the 7th August 1969. The petition has now come up for hearing but the learned counsel states that it has become in fructuous since the petitioners have served out their full sentences. He does not, accordingly, wish to press the petition. The petition is dismissed as having become in fructuous.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.