1992 PLP 1858 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD OADEER ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mian MASOOD AHMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1858 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD OADEER ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mian MASOOD AHMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1858 (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 1992 PLP 1858 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1858 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD OADEER ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mian MASOOD AHMAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Iqbal Bhatti for Petitioner. Nazir Ghazi Asstt. A: G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.561‑A‑‑‑Quashing of order‑‑‑Special Court after taking cognizance of the case could not discharge the accused on the basis of discharge report submitted by police‑‑‑Order passed by Special Court which was not a speaking order was set aside and the trial was ordered to proceed in accordance with law. Muhammad Aslam v. Addl. Secretary to N: W.F.P. PLD 1987 SC 103
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.561‑A‑‑‑Quashing of order‑‑‑Special Court after taking cognizance of the case could not discharge the accused on the basis of discharge report submitted by police‑‑‑Order passed by Special Court which was not a speaking order was set aside and the trial was ordered to proceed in accordance with law. Muhammad Aslam v. Addl. Secretary to N: W.F.P. PLD 1987 SC 103 M. Iqbal Bhatti for Petitioner. Nazir Ghazi Asstt. A: G. for Respondents. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that the Court had taken the cognizance and, thereafter, on the basis of the discharge report submitted by the police, the accused were discharged. Further, contends that the course of action adopted by Judged, Special Court is not warranted by law as envisaged by the Supreme Court in judgment reported as Muhammad Aslam v. Addl. Secretary to N.‑W.F.P. PLD 1987 SC
103. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that once the cognizance has been taken, then, the question of discharge does not at all arise. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General also concedes that such course of action could not have been adopted by the Judge Special Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the 'order impugned is also not a speaking order. In this view of the matter, the order impugned dated 22nd of January, 1992 is hereby set aside and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law. N.H.Q./M‑342/L Petition accepted.