1968 SCMR 434 (PLP)
SHABIR AHMAD KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 434 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | SHABIR AHMAD KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 434 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 434 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 434 (PLP) (SHABIR AHMAD KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rasool Bux A. Memon, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Attorney for Petitioner.
- S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner is being proseetkted under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code on a complaint lodged with the Police by the Civil Judge and F. C. M., Nawabshah. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had snatched away a public document which was part of the Court record from Mr. Hafizul Qadeer Siddiqui, Advocate and ran away with it. He sought quashment of the proceedings against him in the High Court of West Pakistan but his application was dismissed by order dated the 13th October, 1967 by a learned Single Judge. He now seeks special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
- It appears that the document in question had peen filed, along with certain other documents, by the petitioner himself in the Civil Court in relation to a Civil Suit which he had brought there. The document in question was a receipt said to have been executed by the defendent in his favour and had been ordered to be kept in Court in a sealed cover. On one of the dates of bearing the document was brought to Court and this receipt got mixed up with the papers of Mr. Hafizul Qadeer Siddiqui who was advocate for the petitioner. On making the discovery of the receipt among his papers the Advde proceeded back towards the Court to deliver the document tt ae Fresiding Officer. In the way he met the petitioner and mentioned to him what had happened. On this the petitioner is said to have seized the document from the Advocate's hand and to have run awaywith it. The document has not been produced in the Civil Court so far.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 13th October 1967, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 190 of 1966). Penal Code (XLV of 1850), S. 379-Theft-Prima facie offence complete if property taken out of possession of another without latter's consent-S filing certain document in Civil Court-Sub. sequently on one occasion S snatching away that document from his lawyer's hand and runnidg away with it-Despite fact that document originally belonged to S, prima facie offence of theft made out-Special Leave to Appeal, against order of High Court declining to quash proceedings, refused by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner is being proseetkted under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code on a complaint lodged with the Police by the Civil Judge and F. C. M., Nawabshah. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had snatched away a public document which was part of the Court record from Mr. Hafizul Qadeer Siddiqui, Advocate and ran away with it. He sought quashment of the proceedings against him in the High Court of West Pakistan but his application was dismissed by order dated the 13th October, 1967 by a learned Single Judge. He now seeks special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. It appears that the document in question had peen filed, along with certain other documents, by the petitioner himself in the Civil Court in relation to a Civil Suit which he had brought there. The document in question was a receipt said to have been executed by the defendent in his favour and had been ordered to be kept in Court in a sealed cover. On one of the dates of bearing the document was brought to Court and this receipt got mixed up with the papers of Mr. Hafizul Qadeer Siddiqui who was advocate for the petitioner. On making the discovery of the receipt among his papers the Advde proceeded back towards the Court to deliver the document tt ae Fresiding Officer. In the way he met the petitioner and mentioned to him what had happened. On this the petitioner is said to have seized the document from the Advocate's hand and to have run awaywith it. The document has not been produced in the Civil Court so far. Mr. Rasool Bux. A. Memon tried to suggest that this was not a case of theft at all as the document originally belonged to the petitioner. The offence of theft, however, would prima facie be complete if any property is taken out of the possession of another person without the latter's consent. The allegations made against the petitioner would therefore, seem to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The petitioner's Counsel denied the truth of the allegations made against him. We do not wish t say anything which might prejudice the case of either party. It will be open to the petitioner to raise any defence to the complaint that has been made against him. We find no ground to interfere with the order of the High Court and dismiss the petition. Petition dismissed.