1989 PLP 4077 (MLD)
ZULFIQAR AHMAD alias ZULFIQAR Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4077 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR AHMAD alias ZULFIQAR Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4077 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4077 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4077 (MLD) (ZULFIQAR AHMAD alias ZULFIQAR Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Nadeem Saqlain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 7‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Plea that accused was less than 18 years of age‑‑Record available in Court and that of National Registration Office and School also confirming the age to be less than 18 years‑‑Accused, held, was not an adult within the meaning of the Ordinance and provisions of S.7 would be attracted instead of S.10 of the Ordinance‑‑Case thus did not fall within prohibitory clause‑‑Bail was allowed in circumstances. Zaeem‑ul‑Farooq, AA.‑G. for the State. Muhammad Rafiq Waraich for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 7‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Plea that accused was less than 18 years of age‑‑Record available in Court and that of National Registration Office and School also confirming the age to be less than 18 years‑‑Accused, held, was not an adult within the meaning of the Ordinance and provisions of S.7 would be attracted instead of S.10 of the Ordinance‑‑Case thus did not fall within prohibitory clause‑‑Bail was allowed in circumstances. Syed Nadeem Saqlain for Petitioner. Zaeem‑ul‑Farooq, AA.‑G. for the State. Muhammad Rafiq Waraich for the Complainant. The petitioner stands accused in a case F.I.R. No. 185, dated 5‑6‑1989 for having committed an offence under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 which was registered on the statement of Mst. Razia Begum complainant. On 16th of August, 1989 when this petition came up for hearing it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was a 'minor of less than 18 years of age and therefore, not an adult within the meaning of section 2 of the Ordinance, 1979 and as such the provisions of section 10 were not attracted to this case. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General disputed this position and wanted to check the record. Today Mr. Zaeem‑ul‑Farooq, Assistant Advocate‑General states that after having gone through the record of Government Islamia High School Chopala District Gujrat, he is satisfied that the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner is less than 18 years of age is prima facie correct. The record which is available today, in Court also lends support to this contention. The record of National Registration Office, Gujrat also shows the age of the petitioner to be less than 18 years. In these circumstances: prima facie, it appears that the petitioner was not adult and, therefore, the provisions of section 10 of the Ordinance are not attracted. The case prima facie falls under section 7 of the Ordinance for which the punishment is 5 years and as such does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Gujrat. S.A./Z‑118/L Bail allowed.