Pakistan Case Law
1994 SCMR 1176

AHMAD SUBHAN alias BANA and anothers vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1994 SCMR 1176
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 459-L of 1993 Appeal No, 840 of
Date1993-12-05
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, C.J., Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Manzoor Hussain Sial
Authored byNasim Hasan Shah
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioners, convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, filed an appeal before the High Court along with an application for suspension of their sentence during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court dismissed the prayer for suspension of sentence. The petitioners then moved the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against the interlocutory order of the High Court and sought suspension of their sentence. The Supreme Court held that the petition was misconceived as the matter was pending before the High Court, which was seized of all aspects of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that approaching it at this stage against an interlocutory order of the High Court was neither warranted nor justified, and dismissed the petition.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained in the Supreme Court against an interlocutory order of the High Court refusing suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  • Is it justified to approach the Supreme Court against an interlocutory order while the main appeal is pending in the High Court?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
suspension of sentenceinterlocutory ordercriminal appealleave to appealSupreme Court jurisdiction

ORDER

' NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ.---The petitioners have been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life. They have filed an appeal before the High Court against their conviction and sentence, which has been admitted to regular hearing. They also applied for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. However this prayer was not accepted and their plea in this regard has been dismissed. They have now moved this Court for leave to appeal against the last mentioned order of the High Court and seek suspension of their sentence, pending disposal of their appeal in the High Court.

2. This petition is misconceived. The matter is pending in the High Court and it seized of all aspects of the case. To move this Court at this stage against an interlocutory order of the High Court is not, therefore, warranted nor justified.

3. Dismissed.

4. .

Cited by 1 case

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