2000 PLP 1538 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD JAMIL and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1538 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and M. Naeemullah Khan Sherwani, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAMIL and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1538 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1538 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and M. Naeemullah Khan Sherwani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1538 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD JAMIL and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Shaukat Ali for Petitioner
- KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF J.---Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that section 365, P.P.C. was introduced in the Statute Book on 2-12-1999. He further submits that according to P.C.O. No. IX of 14-10-1999 section 5(a)(i), there was no limitation to any Ordinance as provided by the Constitution even if it lapse. As far as this point is concerned, this objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is overruled.
- 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the case has been sent for trial, but is unable to state that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (JB,V of 1860), S.365
Offences allegedly committed by the accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Court, without commenting upon the merit of the case, granted bail to the accused. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF J.
Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that section 365, P.P.C. was introduced in the Statute Book on 2-12-1999. He further submits that according to P.C.O. No. IX of 14-10-1999 section 5(a)(i), there was no limitation to any Ordinance as provided by the Constitution even if it lapse. As far as this point is concerned, this objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is overruled.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute, if any, between the complainant and the present accused is of civil nature. It was Muhammad Latif, A.S.-I. who snatched the truck and took it to Gujrat; that case of the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory field of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and that the petitioners are not required for further investigation.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the case has been sent for trial, but is unable to state that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, as the offences allegedly committed by the. petitioners do not fall within the prohibitory field of section 497(1), I Cr.P.C., we accept this petition. The petitioners are directed to be released from custody subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each with two sureties each in the like) amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M-752/L Bail granted.