2002 PLP 380 (YLR)
AHMAD HAYAT — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 380 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | AHMAD HAYAT — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Cole (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 380 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Cole (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 380 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 380 (YLR) (AHMAD HAYAT — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Farooq Qureshi for Appellant.
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.417
Penal Code. (XLV of 1860, Ss.430/148/149
Appeal against acquittal-- Allegations against accused were that they had damaged irrigation channel which was used by complainant party for irrigating their lands
Trial Court acquitted accused disbelieving evidence against them which was full of contradictions
Evidence on record had revealed that embankment of a natural water channel was broken due to rain
No evidence was produced in support of the charge that channel was damaged by accused-- Was also not established on record that Barsati Nallah was used as irrigation channel by complainant party
Conclusion drawn by Trial Court had been found to be correct-- Accused, in circumstances, were rightly acquitted by Trial Court.
Judgment & Decree
M. Farooq Qureshi for Appellant. Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondent. Criminal case F. I. R. No. 150, dated 12-10--1993 under sections 430/148/149, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Ganjial, District Khushab against Muhammad Sher and others, respondents herein. The allegations against the accused was that they had damaged the irrigation channel, which was used by the complainant party for irrigating their lands.
2. The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence led at trial on the ground that there were contradictions in the statements of witnesses and that it was nowhere proved that the water channel was used as irrigation channel by the complainant party for their lands.
3. The complainant had originally filed appeal before Sessions Judge Khushab, which was disposed of on account of lack of jurisdiction. The complainant appellant subsequently filed under consideration appeal in which notice was issued to the respondents by order dated 20-3-1995.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard today.
5. The record reveals that the embankment of a natural rainy water channel was broken due to rains. There is no evidence which would warrant the view that the channel was damaged by the accused. The conclusion drawn by the Trial Court in this regard has been found to be correct. It was also not established on the record that the rainy nullah was used as irrigation channel by the complainant party. The accused respondents were rightly acquitted by the Trial Court.
6. Dismissed. N.H.Q./A-560/L Appeal dismissed.