1969 PLP 37(1) (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ILYAS‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFAR ‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 37(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFAR ‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 37(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 37(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 37(1) (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHAFAR ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 9th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th March 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1968).
S
476‑Application under section to prosecute a person for making false averment in affidavit‑Question whether person could on merits of case be successfully prosecuted, doubtful‑Proceeding under S. 476, in circumstance, held, could not be "expedient in the interests of justice".
Judgment & Decree
S
476‑Application under section to prosecute a person for making false averment in affidavit‑Question whether person could on merits of case be successfully prosecuted, doubtful‑Proceeding under S. 476, in circumstance, held, could not be "expedient in the interests of justice". S. M. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 9th October 1968. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑On the face of the record the application moved by the petitioner under section 476, Cr. P. C. to prosecute the respondent for a false averment in an affidavit filed by him in the Court of the District Judge in support of the application for a stay order was motivated to harass the respon dent and not to advance the cause of justice. In the circumstances the Courts below have rightly refused to initiate proceedings under section 476, Cr. P. C., against the respondent. The alleged false averment in the affidavit that the petitioner had taken out warrants for his dispossession while in fact only a notice had been issued in the execution application was also of no material consequence inasmuch as the threat of dispossession was imminent. Thus, on merits too it was doubtful if the respondent could be successfully prosecuted under section 476, Cr. P. C. The petition for special leave to appeal is plainly without merit and we dismiss it. Leave refused.