2017 P Cr (PLP)
Dr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Dr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (Dr. MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aqil Khan Baduzai and Ijaz Ahmad Toor for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497 & 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document
Accused could not be considered oblivious of the fact that the property did not vest in him, as he himself transferred the same
Higher or nobler occupational status did not confer immunity on the beholder to escape consequences of breach of law, on the contrary, it cast a heavier duty on him to abide by it more faithfully
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, petitioner herein, apprehending his arrest in a case registered vide FIR No.140 dated 17-3-2016 under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 on the complaint of Muhammad Ramzan, Ahlamd to the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge at Multan with Police Station Chehlyak seeks bail in anticipation thereto; he himself was one of the accused along with his son Arslan Khan and some others; the accused were granted ad interim bail by the said learned Additional Sessions Judge and the petitioner stood surety for his son, in support whereof, he appended copy of a registered sale deed with the bond; upon inquiry, it transpired that the sale deed relied upon related to a property, already alienated by him in favour of his other family members and as such his capacity to stand surety was based upon an invalid instrument. The accusation is being contested on the ground that the petitioner stood surety unsuspectingly and on the basis of a general power of attorney executed in his favour in respect of the same property; his status of a medical practitioner of some standing is yet another plea being pressed into service for confirmation of ad interim bail.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The general power of attorney sans authority to pledge the land as security before any Court of law and as such reliance thereon is beside the mark. The petitioner being a person possessed with considerable academic and professional background cannot be possibly oblivious of the fact that the property referred to above did not vest in him, as he himself transferred the same. Higher or nobler occupational status does not confer immunity on the beholder to escape consequences of breach of law, on the contrary, it casts a heavier onus on him to abide by it more faithfully. A system of administration of justice, drawing distinctions with different treatments to different sections of society is a travesty. In this backdrop, a Medical Practitioner, traditionally considered as learned and noble, being under the oath of Hippocrates is supposed to set examples to be followed by others, therefore, argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be received with approval. No malic or mala fide, sine qua non for the relief prayed for, can be attributed to the Ahlmad, a Court associate. Consequently, Crl. Misc. No.2187-B/2-16 is dismissed and ad-interim bail granted to the petitioner is recalled. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove are tentative for the limited purposes of disposal of this bail plea alone and shall not be construed or pressed into service to petitioner's detriment in any manner whatsoever. WA/M-187/L Bail refused.