1986 P Cr (PLP)
SHAUKAT ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mazharul Haq, J |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazharul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (SHAUKAT ALI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S'. 497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Question as to who was in possession of disputed property when F.I.R. lodged, required consideration‑ Petitioners allowed bail in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S'. 497‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Question as to who was in possession of disputed property when F.I.R. lodged, required consideration‑ Petitioners allowed bail in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985. Prosecution has led no evidence to prove that possession was ever obtained from Mst. Khurshid Begum, sister of Shaukat Ali accused who claimed to be in possession of Government land. Admittedly her appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Settlement) was decided during the pendency of this case and her claim was not accepted and the Ihata was cancelled from Ismail's name. There being no evidence of the delivery of actual physical possession of the Ihata, the question as to who was in possession at the time when the F.I.R. was made requires consideration. Admit. Notice.
2. The question whether after exercise of jurisdiction under section 439‑A, Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, a revision is competent under consideration before a Special Bench. This revision petition be heard alongwith those cases.
3. Notice to the State for today after the break. In view of the admitting order of today, petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.5,000 with two sureties and in the like amount to the satisfaction of Duty Magistrate, Okara. S. G. D. Bail allowed.