MANZOOR alias TIWANA vs THE STATE
This petition is directed against an interim order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment during the pendency of his appeal, on the ground that a previous application had already been dismissed and no fresh ground was made out. The core legal question was whether a second application for suspension of sentence could be entertained on grounds that were available during the first application but not argued or decided on merits. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretionary order declining the suspension of sentence was well-reasoned and unexceptionable, noting that the petitioner was attributed the specific role of stabbing the deceased repeatedly, which warranted no interference at the interim stage. The key principle laid down is that successive applications for suspension of sentence cannot be entertained on grounds already available previously, especially where the merits involve a reappraisal of evidence.
- Whether a second application for suspension of sentence can be entertained on grounds that were available during the first application?
- Does the attribution of repeated stubs to the accused warrant the refusal of suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
- Is interference warranted against a discretionary order of the High Court declining the suspension of a sentence when no fresh grounds are made out?
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--This petition is directed against the interim order, dated 26-2-2002 through which application filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment during pendency of his appeal has been dismissed by the Lahore High Court on the ground that his previous application had already been dismissed and no fresh ground had been made out.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the ground which he was trying to urge before the High Court in fresh application was available when he made the previous application but the said ground having not been decided on merits should have been allowed to be argued.
3. The argument has no force. Besides we have gone through order, dated 10-4-2001 passed in the previous application of the petitioner and find that the petitioner had urged all, the grounds which he has argued today. It was found that according to the conviction recorded B by the Trial Judge, the petitioner was attributed the role of stabbing Khalid deceased repeatedly therefore, the submission made by the petitioner regarding his innocence required reappraisal of evidence which may lie done at the time of hearing of the appeal.
4. No ground has been made out for interference in the well-I reasoned discretionary order passed by the High Court declining plea of suspension of sentence therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and . 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.