1984 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM QADIR alias QADIR BUX-Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR alias QADIR BUX-Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 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 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM QADIR alias QADIR BUX-Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 110; 112, 117(3) & 561-A - Quashing of proceedings
Accused after arrest of under S. 55 Magistrate neither passing order under S. 112 nor under S. 117(3), Cr. P. C.
Whole proceedings, held, vitiated and accused could not be remanded to police custody,- Proceedings quashed. Syed Madad Ally Shah for Applicant. A. A. Muhammad Ally, A. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Today only bail application is fixed for hearing. However, both the learned counsel for the applicant and the State agree that instead of deciding the bail application the main application for quashment may be heard and decided. The admitted position in the case is that a complaint under section 110, Cr. P. C. was lodged by the S. H. O. Cantonment Police Station Hyderabad, before the S. D. M., Hyderabad. The accused was produced before the S. D. M. after having been arrested under section 55, Cr. P. C., but on production neither the Magistrate passed ally order under section 112, Cr. P. C. nor any order was passed under section 117(3), Cr. P. C. as required by law. In these circumstances the whole proceedings were vitiated and the accused could not be remanded to the Police custody in the absence of an order from the Court under section 117(3), Cr. P. C. The learned A. A. G. supports the application. I accordingly quash the proceedings against the applicant and further direct that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. M. Y. H. Proceedings quashed.