2001 PLP 3309 (YLR)
ALLAH WASAYA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 3309 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J |
| Parties | ALLAH WASAYA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 3309 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 3309 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 3309 (YLR) (ALLAH WASAYA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Sajid Feroze for Petitioner.
- M. Abdul Rasheed Rashid for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.10(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Transfer of case to Anti‑Terrorism Court‑‑‑Case was sought to be transferred to the Anti‑Terrorism Court on ground that allegation in the F.LR. was that two of the accused persons had committed Zina with the victim girl, thus it was a case of gang rape which was triable by the Anti‑Terrorism Court‑‑‑Complainant in his statement got recorded before the Judicial Magistrate had stated that one of the two accused who were alleged to have committed Zina was innocent and that the complainant had no objection if he was discharged from the case and on the said statement of the complainant the accused was discharged by the Magistrate‑‑‑Trial Court in circumstances, had rightly ordered that case was not triable by the Special Judge, but was triable by the Sessions Court. Malik Muhammad Aslam for the Accused.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Sajid Feroze for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Aslam for the Accused. M. Abdul Rasheed Rashid for Respondents. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the case F.I.R. No.112 of 2001, dated 29‑3‑2001, Police Station Rukanpur, District Rahimyar Khan is triable by Special Court, Anti‑Terrorism Activities, and orders, dated 19‑5‑2001 and 30‑6‑2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan be declared to be without lawful authority.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a case has been registered vide F.I.R. No.112 of 2001, dated 29‑3‑2001 at Police Station Rukanpur, District Rahimyar Khan, on the complaint of Allah Wasaya son of Abdul Rehman petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there are allegations in the F.I.R. that Akram and Aslam had committed Zina with victim Mst. Asia, therefore, it is a case of gang‑rape and the same is triable by the Court of Special Judge, Anti‑Terrorism Activities.
3. It is correct that an order was passed on 19‑5‑2001 by the trial Court when the case of the prosecution was that both Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with the victim Mst. Asia. Thereafter, on 28‑5‑2001 complainant Allah Wasaya got recorded his statement before the Judicial Magistrate and stated that Muhammad Akram son of Ibrahi, Abdul Hamid and Rehmat, who were nominated in the F.I.R. were innocent and he fully agreed with the investigation of the case. He also stated that he had no objection if they are discharged from the case; hence as per his statement, Muhammad Akram was discharged from the case by the learned Magistrate. The Public Prosecutor who appeared before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge has admitted that the challan was being submitted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 in the Sessions Court. In the light of the above discussion, to my mind the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the case is not triable by the Special Judge and is triable bye the Sessions Court is legally correct. There is no force in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A‑231/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.