P L D 1966 (W (PLP)
ABDUL SATTAR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nazeer Ahmad Mahmood, J |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nazeer Ahmad Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 (W (PLP) (ABDUL SATTAR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th February 1966.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 337, 497 & 498‑Provisions of Ss. 497 & 498‑Applicable only to accused‑Approver on accepting pardon ceases to be accused‑Approver in custody under S. 337(3)‑Cannot be released on bail until termination of trial. Nemat Khan for A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Petitioner. Nemat Khan for A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 16th February 1966. The petitioner is being detained in custody as an approver in three cases involving offences under sections 379/411, 467/468, 420/471 and 420/468, Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner represents that he has been under detention in jail for about a year and that the six accused involved in these cases have already been released on bail and are interested in causing delay in the trial of their cases. He, therefore, prays that he may be released on bail so that he is able to look after his children.
2. I am afraid the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. The plain reading of subsection (3) of section 337, Criminal Procedure Code, the relevant mandatory provision, admits of no other construction than that an approver in custody, so long as he retains that character, shall have to remain in detention till the determination of the trial of the case or cases in which he has become an approver.
3. Nor have sections 497 and 498, Criminal Procedure Code, any application to the case of an approver. They empower a Court to enlarge on bail in a proper case only a person accused of an offence. An approver, after accepting the pardon tendered to him, ceases to be an accused person and has to appear as a witness so long as he remains an approver.
4. In view of the above, I don not think that the petitioner can be allowed bail before the end of the trial of the cases in which he has become an approver. The petition is dismissed. But the Magistrate seized of the cases is directed to take steps to ensure a seedy disposal of the cases. K.B.A. Petition dismissed