1989 PLP 4166 (MLD)
Mst. AZIMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR AND STATE‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4166 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. AZIMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR AND STATE‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4166 (MLD)?
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 PLP 4166 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4166 (MLD) (Mst. AZIMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL SATTAR AND STATE‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Sardar Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.561‑A‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10‑‑Accused allegedly committed Zina with the result that lady became pregnant and consequently miscarriage was caused and baby thrown in canal from where it was recovered subsequently‑‑Magistrate discharged accused on report of Police who found allegation to be false‑‑Magistrate arbitrarily discharged accused without examining first information report; medical report and statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. of witnesses mentioned in first information report and reasons given by Police for discharge of accused Order of discharge passed by Magistrate was set aside and case was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Muhammad Akbar for State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 21st February, 1989. The facts leading to this petition under Section 561‑A Cr.P.C. briefly, are that on 22‑6‑1987 case under Section 318/312 PPC and Section 10 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was registered against Abdul Sattar on the report of Mst. Aziman petitioner.
2. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had developed illicit relations with Mst. Hassina co‑accused and committed Zina with her with the result that she became pregnant. As a consequence of miscarriage caused by her parents, a baby was born and thrown in Muhammadwah Canal where from the dead body was recovered subsequently. During the investigation, Police found the allegations to be false. Consequently, the Police applied for the discharge of the accused/respondent. The learned Assistant Commissioner, Ahmadpur, East passed the following order‑‑ URDU PARAGRAPH 4167 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has mechanically discharged the accused/respondent; that he had not applied his mind to the contents of the F I R and the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation. Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to support the order of the discharge.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the earned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the learned Magistrate has arbitrarily discharged the accused without taking the trouble of examining the F I R, the medical report and the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses mentioned in the F I R. and the reasons given by the Police for the discharge of the respondent. So there is no option but to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and send back the‑matter to him for fresh disposal of the application of the Police for the discharge of the respondent, in accordance with law. Order accordingly. M.Y.H./A‑670/L Case remanded.