1989 P Cr (PLP)
Malik IFTIKHAR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary to Government of the Punjab Home Department, Lahore and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiah Khan, J |
| Parties | Malik IFTIKHAR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary to Government of the Punjab Home Department, Lahore and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Afrasiah Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (Malik IFTIKHAR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary to Government of the Punjab Home Department, Lahore and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Zafar Chaudhary for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 27th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 173‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Two Constitutional petitions filed for declaring F.I.R. to be ultra vires and illegal‑‑Petitioner and State counsel resolved the controversy‑‑Constitutional petitions were disposed of by directing the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation of case within specified time and if no case was found against petitioner he was to prepare cancellation report and proceed according to law. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Addl. A. G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 173‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Two Constitutional petitions filed for declaring F.I.R. to be ultra vires and illegal‑‑Petitioner and State counsel resolved the controversy‑‑Constitutional petitions were disposed of by directing the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation of case within specified time and if no case was found against petitioner he was to prepare cancellation report and proceed according to law. M. Zafar Chaudhary for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Addl. A. G. for the State. Date of hearing: 27th November, 1988. In the Writ Petitions Nos. 10051 and 10867 of 1980, the learned counsel for the parties have resolved the controversy by making statements in Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he will not press the petitions if a specific direction, is given to the Investigating Officer for completion of the investigation. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has agreed with the suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Investigating Officer is present with record of the case. In view of the statements of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate‑General, a direction is issued to the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation of the case within 15 days, without fail. If after recording evidence the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner, he shall prepare a cancellation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and thereafter shall proceed in the matter according to law. He shall also submit a compliance report to this Court. With this observation, both the writ petitions are disposed of. S.A./I‑102/L Petitions disposed of.