1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUNIR AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL etc. — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL etc. — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUNIR AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL etc. — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Najeeb Faisal Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 120-B, 121-A & 123-A
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-- Registration of case
Jurisdiction of High Court at the Principal Seat could not be involved in respect of the Press Conferences addressed by the accused at Islamabad
Contents of the Constitutional petition did not, prima facie, establish that the provisions of Ss.120-B, 121-A & 123-A, P.P.C. were attracted to the allegations made against the accused therein
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner has contended for a direction for a registration of a case against respondent No.3 alleging herein that he had committed the offences that are duly covered by the provisions of sections 120-B, 121-A and 123-A, P.P.C., as stated in the applications submitted to respondents Nos.1, 2 s and 3 respectively (copies of the said applications have been annexed hereto as Annexures "C", "E" and "D" respectively).
2. However, on a question, the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that although in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition it has been stated that respondent No.3 has visited a number of cities i.e. Lahore, Kasur etc. where he has made speeches, on the basis of which it was argued that he was guilty of offences alleged, yet it has not been so stated in the applications submitted to respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4, as stated above. The learned counsel for the petitioner further conceded that the jurisdiction of this Court at the Principal Seat could not be invoked in respect of the Press Conferences addressed by respondent No.3 at Islamabad, whereby it is alleged that the case is made out against him under the provisions of law stated above. Furthermore, when called upon to substantiate that the criminal conspiracy as defined in section 120-A, P.P.C. had taken place in which respondent No.3 was involved by referring to anything stated in the present petition, the learned counsel took time to read out the entire paragraph No.3 of the present petition before submitting that there was nothing in the petition to support the allegation that a criminal conspiracy had taken place in the first instance and that respondent No.3 was a party thereto. Further failed to refer to anything stated in the present petition or its annexures that, prima facie, may establish that the provisions of sections 121-A and 123-A, P.P.C. were attracted to what had been attributed to respondent No.3 in the present writ petition or in the Annexures annexed hereto.
3. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, the present writ petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./M-1448/L Petition dismissed.