1986 P Cr (PLP)
ZAINUL ZAHIDEEN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gulbaz Khan, J |
| Parties | ZAINUL ZAHIDEEN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gulbaz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (ZAINUL ZAHIDEEN Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Akmal Salami for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th February, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489‑A, 489‑B, 489‑C, 499‑D a 489‑E‑‑Neither any counterfeit currency notes recovered nor other incriminating evidence against petitioner found‑‑Accused behind bars for more than 6 months, statement of co‑accused before police could not be used against petitioner‑‑Bail granted. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489‑A, 489‑B, 489‑C, 489‑D 1 489‑E‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Military Court‑‑Jurisdiction in matters relating to counterfeit currency‑‑Challan having not been submitted in Court‑ Military Court had not taken cognizance of case‑‑High Court, held, was competent to allow ball. ‑‑‑[Jurisdiction]. Rizwan Ilahi v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 91 ref. M. Saleem Shad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489‑A, 489‑B, 489‑C, 489‑D 1 489‑E‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Military Court‑‑Jurisdiction in matters relating to counterfeit currency‑‑Challan having not been submitted in Court‑ Military Court had not taken cognizance of case‑‑High Court, held, was competent to allow ball. ‑‑‑[Jurisdiction]. Rizwan Ilahi v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 91 ref. M. Akmal Salami for Petitioner. M. Saleem Shad for the State. Date of hearing: 7th February, 1984. The learned counsel for the State had raised objection after referring to letter No. 57/24(259) AJAG/CMLA/82, dated 14‑3‑1982 stating that the cases under section 489/ABCDE shall be tried by the Military court, that this Court has no jurisdiction to allow bail in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since s. the Military Court has not taken cognizance as yet, this court is competent to allow bail. In support of his contention, he cited Rizwan Ilahi v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 91.
2. It is an admitted fact that the case is still under investigation and the challan has not been submitted so far in Court. The Military Court has not taken cognizance of the case. In view of these circumstances, I hold that this Court is competent to allow bail in such a case.
3. As regards the merits, a case under section 489/BC, P.P.C, was registered et Police Station Old Anarkali, on 20‑2‑1982, on the receipt of secret information that a gang had indulged in counterfeiting currency notes of the denomination of Rupees one hundred and those notes were being spread in the market. The only evidence collected A far against the Petitioner is the statement of Fareed Ahmad co‑accused made before the police. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had purchased notes worth Rupees one lac, forty thousand for a consideration of Rupees twenty‑five thousand. No recovery of counterfeit currency notes had been affected from the petitioner, and no other incriminating evidence has been collected against him so far, although he is in custody since 18‑12‑1983. Legally, the statement of the co‑accused made before the police cannot be used against the petitioner. Fareed Ahmad co‑accused had not made any judicial confession so far involving the present petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rupees fifty thousand with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C., Lahore.
4. The petitioner shall join investigation, if and when required. S. A. Bail allowed.