YLR 2002

2002 PLP 3040 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus QURBAN ILAHI, and others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.4083 of 2002, decided on 14th March, 2002.
Honorable Judges
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 3040 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Parties MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus QURBAN ILAHI, and others‑‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3040 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3040 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3040 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus QURBAN ILAHI, and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • N.A. Butt for Petitioner.
  • Ishfaq Ahmad Chaudhry for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
  • 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the police officer appearing before this Court in person today alongwith the record of the above mentioned criminal case have conceded before this Court that during the investigation no crime‑empty was recovered from the place of occurrence and, therefore, any recovery of a weapon to be effected from the petitioner's son during the investigation of this case is not likely to be of much legal consequences as the same shall not stand connected with the alleged offences in the absence of any matching of the same with a crime empty. It has further been conceded that despite permission having been granted by the earned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura to the Investigating Officer of the above mentioned criminal case regarding applying afresh before the Area Magistrate for a further physical remand of the petitioner's son the investigating Officer has not so far applied for the same and that the Investigation of this case has already been completed and, therefore, the Investigating Officer has no intention to apply for a fresh physical remand of the petitioner's son in connection with the above mentioned criminal case. In view of this stand taken by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 as well as by the police officer present before this Court the sting has already been taken out of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala. District Sheikhupura and the petitioner no longer feels aggrieved of the same. Because of these factors the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition any further and the same is, therefore, disposed of as having not been pressed at this stage.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑S.167‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/148/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Physical remand of accused‑‑‑Remand for period of seven days granted by Magistrate having expired, Police again applied for further remand which vas refused and accused was sent to judicial lock‑up‑‑‑Appellate Court in revision set aside refusal order allowing Investigating Officer to apply for physical remand of accused before the Area Magistrate‑‑‑Despite permission of Appellate Court, Investigating Officer had not applied for the same‑‑‑Investigation of the case having already been completed, Investigating Officer had no intention to apply for a fresh physical remand of the accused‑‑ High Court disposed of Constitutional petition having not been pressed.

Judgment & Decree

Writ Petition No.4083 of 2002, decided on 14th March, 2002. ‑‑‑S.167‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/148/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Physical remand of accused‑‑‑Remand for period of seven days granted by Magistrate having expired, Police again applied for further remand which vas refused and accused was sent to judicial lock‑up‑‑‑Appellate Court in revision set aside refusal order allowing Investigating Officer to apply for physical remand of accused before the Area Magistrate‑‑‑Despite permission of Appellate Court, Investigating Officer had not applied for the same‑‑‑Investigation of the case having already been completed, Investigating Officer had no intention to apply for a fresh physical remand of the accused‑‑ High Court disposed of Constitutional petition having not been pressed. N.A. Butt for Petitioner. Ishfaq Ahmad Chaudhry for Respondents Nos. 3 and

4. The petitioner is the father of one Asad alias Asadoo accused in case F.I.R. No.486 registered at Police Station Narang, District Sheikhupura on 31‑12‑2000 for offences under sections 148/302/149, P.P.C. Initially the petitioner's son mentioned above had become fugitive from law but subsequently he, was arrested and on 24‑1‑2002 the Area Magistrate of Police Station Narang, District Sheikhupura granted physical remand of the petitioner's son for a period of seven days. On 31‑1‑2002 the local police again applied for further physical remand of the petitioner's son but the Area Magistrate refused further physical remand of the petitioner's son and sent him to judicial lock‑up. Respondent No. 1, who is the complainant of the abovementioned criminal case, preferred a revision petition against the order passed by the Area Magistrate on 31‑1‑2002 and vide judgment dated 16‑2‑2002 the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura accepted that revision petition, set aside the order passed by the Area Magistrate on 31‑1‑2002 and allowed the Investigating Officer of the above mentioned criminal case to apply for physical remand of me petitioners son again before the Area Magistrate, if so advised. The said judgment passed by learned ‑Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura on 16‑2‑2002 has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court through the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the police officer appearing before this Court in person today alongwith the record of the above mentioned criminal case have conceded before this Court that during the investigation no crime‑empty was recovered from the place of occurrence and, therefore, any recovery of a weapon to be effected from the petitioner's son during the investigation of this case is not likely to be of much legal consequences as the same shall not stand connected with the alleged offences in the absence of any matching of the same with a crime empty. It has further been conceded that despite permission having been granted by the earned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura to the Investigating Officer of the above mentioned criminal case regarding applying afresh before the Area Magistrate for a further physical remand of the petitioner's son the investigating Officer has not so far applied for the same and that the Investigation of this case has already been completed and, therefore, the Investigating Officer has no intention to apply for a fresh physical remand of the petitioner's son in connection with the above mentioned criminal case. In view of this stand taken by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 as well as by the police officer present before this Court the sting has already been taken out of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala. District Sheikhupura and the petitioner no longer feels aggrieved of the same. Because of these factors the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition any further and the same is, therefore, disposed of as having not been pressed at this stage. H.B.T./M‑1278/L Order accordingly.