1969 PLP R42 (SCMR)
Ch. KHAN ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP R42 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ch. KHAN ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP R42 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP R42 (SCMR)?
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: 1969 PLP R42 (SCMR) (Ch. KHAN ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Husain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 29th November 1968. ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑This petition is barred by 548 days. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in question. He has stated that he came to know of the decision appealed against on the 26th September 1968. He, thereafter applied for copy of the judgment and after receipt of it filed the petition for leave to appeal. In view of the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay as indicated above we condone the delay in filing the petition for leave. Leave is sought to appeal from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid, accepting a reference under section 438, Cr. P. C. made by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. Five persons namely, Mst. Anwar, Mst. Sakina, Mst. Sharifan, Abdul Hamid and Wahid Bakhsh were challan ed under section 4 of the West Pakistan Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance. They were convicted by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Ahmadpur East and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each or in default to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a month. Abdul Hamid alone filed a revision petition in which he challenged his conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove soliciting for which the accused persons were charged and convicted. He further came to the conclusion that the offence of soliciting can be committed only by a female and therefore the conviction of two male persons, namely, Abdul Hamid and Wahid Bakhsh could not be justified. He therefore recommended that the convictions and sentences of the accused persons be set aside. The learned Single Judge accepted the reference and ended up his order by observing "I am fully satisfied that a baseless case against the accused was brought forward by the Thanedar in this case. The revision petition is accepted in terms mentioned above". Abdul Hamid, it appears, has filed a civil suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution against the petitioner, who submitted challans in the criminal case and some others. It is contended that the remark against the petitioner was passed by the learned Judge without examining the evidence on record and was therefore uncalled for. It is further sub mitted that the fabric of judgment would remain unaffected if the said remark is expunged from the judgment. The points raised merit consideration. Leave is accordingly granted. Leave granted.