1981 PLP 1095 (SCMR)
ABDUL KARIM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHUR — Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1095 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --- S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings---.High Court while quashing proceedings making observations not necessary for passing order-Held, such observations have no binding effect upon peti tioner.-Quashment of proceedings. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mushtaq Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL KARIM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHUR — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1095 (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 1981 PLP 1095 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --- S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings---.High Court while quashing proceedings making observations not necessary for passing order-Held, such observations have no binding effect upon peti tioner.-Quashment of proceedings. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mushtaq Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1095 (SCMR) (ABDUL KARIM-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHUR — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate.on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Petition against the order 23-4-79 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Cr. Misc. No. 138/Q/1979).
S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings
.High Court while quashing proceedings making observations not necessary for passing order-Held, such observations have no binding effect upon peti tioner.-[Quashment of proceedings].
Judgment & Decree
S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings
.High Court while quashing proceedings making observations not necessary for passing order-Held, such observations have no binding effect upon peti tioner.-[Quashment of proceedings]. Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate.on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 20th December, 1980. The respondent NoNo. 2, with the Agricultural arrangement arrived Bank of Pakistan a sum of Rs. 3, lacs was paid to Abdul Karim petitioner through the said Bank. In pursuance of order No 944 dated 1-3-72 placed upon him fore cotton Ginning and Bailing Press. Abdul Karim, the supplier, was the proprietor Messrs Fahim Engineering Company Ltd. l Multan. The Bailing Press was to be supplied within three months. A pare of the machinery was supplied anal the other part was sold by Umar Hayat to some body else at a higher price. A case under section 406420, P. P. C. was registered against Abdul Karim petitioner on 29-1-1973. The parts complained of were under orders of the Courts delivered on supardari to Umar Hayat. Karim filed a petition for quashment of tae challan which was put in Court by the P. D. S. P. on 2;4-11-7a. By its order dated 22-4-79 a learned Judge of the High Court accepted the petition and quashed. the criminal proceedings pending against Karim.
2. The petitioner has left aggrieved by the observations made in the judgment by the learned Judge of the High Court to the effect that the Agreements dated 18-:-73 (Annexure C) and 15-1-79 (Annexure 'E') had been fabricated by the petitioner and that the machinery which was taken on supardari by Umar Hayat was the balance of the contracted machinery and that respondent No. 2 was not liable to pay is 1,40,000, to him.
3. Leave to appeal is refused on the short ground that the aforemen tioned observations made by the learned, judge were not necessary for the quashment of the case against Abdul Karim and have no binding effect upon the petitioner. Any civil proceedings which if instituted will be disposed of on their own merits on the basis of the evidence that may be led in such a case.
4. The petitioner asked for quashment which be got from the Court. This petition has no merits and is dismissed limine. S. Q. Petition dismissed.