P L D 2001 Lahore 184 (PLP)
THE STATE and 2 others — Appellants Versus Ch. MAQSOOD ALAM — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2001 Lahore 184 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THE STATE and 2 others — Appellants Versus Ch. MAQSOOD ALAM — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2001 Lahore 184 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2001 Lahore 184 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2001 Lahore 184 (PLP) (THE STATE and 2 others — Appellants Versus Ch. MAQSOOD ALAM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- 2. A case under section 21(2-A) of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 was registered against the respondent which was being tried by an Executive Magistrate. The maximum punishment which can be awarded to an offender under the aforesaid law is three years as provided by section 21(2-A) of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance. The Constitutional petition (Writ Petition No.6390/1998/BWP) seeking quashment of the case was filed by the respondent. When the case came up before the learned Single Judge before him it was stated by the learned Assistant Advocate- General that in view of the clear provisions of Law Reforms Ordinance he has no objection to the acceptance of the writ petition under section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as a result of which the petition stands allowed and the Executive Magistrate was directed to send the record of the case to the Judicial Magistrate.
- 4. It is unfortunate that this amendment was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge who was misled by the learned Assistant Advocate-General by making a statement which is clearly contradictory to the law cited above.
Headnotes / Summary
S.21(2-A)
Law Reforms' Ordinance (XII of 1972), Item 11-A [as amended by Legal Reforms Act (XXIII of 1997)], S.3(4)
Offence under S.21(2-A), Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 being punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years with or without any other punishment, was triable by an Executive Magistrate.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. This is an application seeking review of the order/judgment passed by this Court on 28-1-1999 whereby Constitutional petition filed by the respondent was accepted on the basis of statement made by the learned Law Officer that the Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case.
2. A case under section 21(2-A) of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 was registered against the respondent which was being tried by an Executive Magistrate. The maximum punishment which can be awarded to an offender under the aforesaid law is three years as provided by section 21(2-A) of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance. The Constitutional petition (Writ Petition No.6390/1998/BWP) seeking quashment of the case was filed by the respondent. When the case came up before the learned Single Judge before him it was stated by the learned Assistant Advocate- General that in view of the clear provisions of Law Reforms Ordinance he has no objection to the acceptance of the writ petition under section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as a result of which the petition stands allowed and the Executive Magistrate was directed to send the record of the case to the Judicial Magistrate.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have pointed out that the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 was itself amended by section 3(4) of the Legal Reforms Act, 1997 (XXIII of 1997) in the following terms:-- "Provided that the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years with or without any other punishment shall be tried by the Executive Magistrate." 3-A. No one has appeared for the respondent despite notice. He is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
4. It is unfortunate that this amendment was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge who was misled by the learned Assistant Advocate-General by making a statement which is clearly contradictory to the law cited above.
5. In view of what has been stated above we allow this petition and set aside the order dated 28-1-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge. M.B.A./142-L/S Petition allowed.