2006 PLP 1447 (YLR)
ASIF LATEEF — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1447 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J |
| Parties | ASIF LATEEF — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1447 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1447 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1447 (YLR) (ASIF LATEEF — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Tahir Mahmood for Petitioner.
- Shahid Azeem and Muhammad Akbar Tarar, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents Nos.2 to 6.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 341, 506, 148 & 149
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Summoning of accused to face the trial
Trial Court (Magistrate) after preliminary evidence summoned accused to face the trial, but Additional Sessions Judge dismissed complaint filed by petitioner/complainant in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
Revisional Court was of the view that statements of the witnesses were recorded in two different type of handwriting and no clarification was made by concerned Magistrate in that regard
No force was found in observations of revisional Court because copies of evidence placed on record had revealed that those were signed by the Magistrate as well as thumb-marked by the witnesses
Prima facie there was no such allegation in proceedings as pointed out by revisional Court while passing impugned order
Order of trial Magistrate revealed that Magistrate, after application of conscious mind, when satisfied that evidence available on record prima facie was sufficient to connect accused with commission of offence, had directed them to join proceedings
Impugned order passed by revisional Court, being not maintainable, was set aside with direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM- UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Petitioner is complainant of a private complaint titled "Asif Latif v. Alam Khan and others" for the offence under sections 337-A(i)/337-F(i)/3411506/ 1481149, P.P.C. Learned trial Court (Magistrate) after recording the, preliminary evidence vide order, dated 17-2-2004 summoned the respondents to face the trial. This order was assailed before Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali in the revisional jurisdiction who vide order, dated 7-8-2004 while accepting the revision petition A dismissed the complaint. Through this constitutional petition legality of the order of said revisional Court has been challenged.
2. Heard file perused. Bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the revisional Court has allowed the revision because in his view the statements of the witnesses were recorded in two different type of handwriting and there is no clarification by the concerned Magistrate in this regard and thus, the revisional Court held the proceedings as null and void. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length and going through the record, I have observed that there is no force in the observations of learned revisional Court because copies of the evidence placed on record reveal that those were signed by the Magistrate as well as thumb-marked by the witnesses and prima facie there is no such illegality in the A proceedings as pointed out by the learned revisional Court while passing the impugned order. Order of the trial Court reveals that learned Magistrate after the application of conscious mind when satisfied that the evidence available on record prima facie is sufficient to connect the respondents with the commission of offence has directed them to join the proceedings. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 7-8-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali is not sustainable. The same is set aside with the direction to the trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously. H.B.T./A-42/L Petition accepted.