1984 PLP 1555 (MLD)
ABDUL MAJEED — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1555 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1555 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1555 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1555 (MLD) (ABDUL MAJEED — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh.Dilawar Hussain for Petitioner.
- Ch.Zirad Din Ahmad Qamar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th April, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379--Quashing of pro ceedings--Fact whether complainant was in lawful possession of truck in dispute and it was stolen by petitioner yet to be proved at trial--Held, not a case of abuse of process of Court--Quashing of proceedings declined in circumstances. Khalid Alvi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 561-A--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379--Quashing of pro ceedings--Fact whether complainant was in lawful possession of truck in dispute and it was stolen by petitioner yet to be proved at trial--Held, not a case of abuse of process of Court--Quashing of proceedings declined in circumstances. Sh.Dilawar Hussain for Petitioner. Ch.Zirad Din Ahmad Qamar for Respondents. Khalid Alvi for the State. Date of hearing: 16th April, 1983. A complaint is pending in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class/ Assistant Commissioner, Kot Addu. The petitioner is alleged to have taken away a Truck which had been purchased by the complainant and for which he had made part payment to the petitioner. The trial Court after recording preliminary evidence has summoned the petitioner to stand a charge under section 379, P:P.C. The complaint itself had levelled allegations under sections 420, 406, P.P.C. but the trial Court decided to summon the petitioner for an offence under section 379, P.P.C only. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the allegations against the petitioner are false as there was no writing in existence that the Truck was sold for Rs.40,000 and that a couple of instalments were already paid to the petitioner. But in my view this is of no consequence as this objection relates only to the quantum of evidence. On the other hand, if the complainant can produce to show that he was in lawful possession of the Truck and that it was stolen by the petitioner, the petitioner will be guilty of an offence under section 379, P.P.C. Whether the charges can be proved or not is of course, a matter of evidence and cannot be prejudged at this stage. It is, therefore, not a case of abuse of process of Court. The petition has no merit. It is dismissed. The record of the case may be returned to the Magistrate 1st Class/Assistant Commissioner, Kot Add for further proceedings in the matter. S. G. D. Petition dismissed.