1992 PLP 1916 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MURID AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1916 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MURID AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1916 (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 1992 PLP 1916 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1916 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MURID AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner.
- Nazir Hussain for Respondents (except absconders).
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.526‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365‑A/148/149‑‑‑Trial Court had burdened the petitioner twice with total ‑costs amounting to Rs.4,000‑‑ Normally in criminal trials parties are not burdened with the payment of costs‑‑‑Petitioner, therefore, had genuine reasons to feel apprehensive‑‑‑Case was consequently withdrawn from the Court of Special Judge, Bahawalpur, and made over to the Court of Special Judge, Multan. Rana Arif, A.A.‑G. (on call by Court). Date, of hearing: 3rd November, 1991.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner. Nazir Hussain for Respondents (except absconders). Rana Arif, A.A.‑G. (on call by Court). Date, of hearing: 3rd November, 1991. Report and parawise comments have been received from the trial. Court.
2. Although most of the allegations levelled in the petition have been denied by the trial Judge, but the averment of the petitioner that the trial Judge had burdened the petitioner twice with costs amounting to Rs.4,000 (total) has not been denied. Normally, in criminal trials parties are not burdened with the payment of costs. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the State have not been able to recollect even any such instance.
3. In the circumstances, there are genuine reasons for the petitioner to feel apprehensive. The case titled Muhammad Aslam v. Murid Ahmed etc. ,(9 persons') under section 365‑A/148/149, P.P.C. is, therefore, directed to be withdrawn from the Court of Mr. Fakhr‑ud‑Din Siddiqui Judge, Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities; Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and is made over to the Court of Molvi Sultan Alam. Special Judge for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Multan N.H.Q./M‑432/L Case transferred.