2004 PLP 789(1) (YLR)
SHEHZAD RAZA and others — Petitioners Versus ATIF ZESSHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 789(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J |
| Parties | SHEHZAD RAZA and others — Petitioners Versus ATIF ZESSHAN — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 789(1) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 789(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 789(1) (YLR) (SHEHZAD RAZA and others — Petitioners Versus ATIF ZESSHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
Revision Petition No.45 of 2003, heard on 30th September, 2003.
S. 439
Application moved by the petitioners under S.249-A, Cr. P. C. had been dismissed by the Trial Court through the impugned order-- Respondents mentioned in the order at least, prima facie, being not accused persons could not be arrayed as accused in the criminal complaint, for the simple reason that they-were not the respondents in the main case in which the applicant was reinstated
Notice was issued by High Court in circumstances
Proceedings before the lower Court were also suspended in the meanwhile. Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate. Date of hearing: 30th September, 2003.
1. Grant subject to all just exceptions, 2 and
3. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order whereby the application of the applicants under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. was dismissed suffers from a legal infirmity inasmuch as in the train case viz. 55 of 1999 the Company was not made a party and hence reinstatement could not be ordered. Secondly, per learned counsel, in the said main case only respondent No.1 was a party hence the criminal complaint under section 25-A (a) could only be moved against the said respondent whereas in the present case respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have also been made accused. Hence, learned counsel prays for notice and also in the meantime that the proceedings before the Labour Court be stayed. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record. Prima facie, it appears that at least respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 cannot become accused persons for the simple reason that they were not the respondents in the main case in which the applicant was reinstated in the circumstances, let notice be issued and in the meanwhile, the proceedings before the learned Labour Court are suspended. Adjourned to 16-10-2003. N.H.Q./S-7/K Order accordingly.