Register
PLD 1949

P (PLP)

MARU KHAN and others‑Accused‑Applicants Versus CROWN‑Complainant‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous application, decided on 20th August, 1949, under section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for transfer of case.
Honorable Judges
Saker. J. C.
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P (PLP)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Saker. J. C.
Parties MARU KHAN and others‑Accused‑Applicants Versus CROWN‑Complainant‑Respondent
Primary Law A. I. R. 1934 All. 455 (2) referred to., Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526‑Non‑availability of pleader or infrequency of train service not good grounds for transfer., While section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed, section 181 (3) of the same Code permits a person found in possession of stolen property to be tried either by a Court within whose jurisdiction the offence of theft was committed or by the Court within whose jurisdiction the stolen property was found. ‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: A. I. R. 1934 All. 455 (2) referred to., Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526‑Non‑availability of pleader or infrequency of train service not good grounds for transfer., While section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed, section 181 (3) of the same Code permits a person found in possession of stolen property to be tried either by a Court within whose jurisdiction the offence of theft was committed or by the Court within whose jurisdiction the stolen property was found. ‑, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 177, 181 (3)‑Person found in possession of stolen property can be tried either by Court within whose jurisdiction theft was committed or by Court within whose jurisdiction property was found. as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saker. J. C..

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

Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (MARU KHAN and others‑Accused‑Applicants Versus CROWN‑Complainant‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

A. I. R. 1934 All. 455 (2) referred to. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526‑Non‑availability of pleader or infrequency of train service not good grounds for transfer. While section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed, section 181 (3) of the same Code permits a person found in possession of stolen property to be tried either by a Court within whose jurisdiction the offence of theft was committed or by the Court within whose jurisdiction the stolen property was found. ‑ Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 177, 181 (3)‑Person found in possession of stolen property can be tried either by Court within whose jurisdiction theft was committed or by Court within whose jurisdiction property was found.

Legal Tools

Metadata Directory

  • Journal: PLD
  • Volume Year: 1949
  • Citation Ref: P (PLP)

Cite & Link (Backlink Generator)

Are you writing a blog or referencing this case? Copy the optimized HTML link below to cite this judgment on your website and create a legal backlink:

HTML Backlink Code:
Text Citation:

Related Judgments

  • P HARIRAM KHIARANI, A FIRM‑Applicants Versus GOBINDRAM RATTAN CHAND, A FIRM‑Opponents
  • P MULCHAND UDHOOMAL‑Appellant Versus BHERUMAL KANOMAL and others‑Respondents
  • P MOOR MUHAMMAD, WALI MUHAMMAD‑Appellants Versus DHIRA SINGH-JAGAT SINGH and others‑Respondents
  • P RAHMATULLA‑ Plaintiff Versus MAQBOOL ALAM‑Defendant
  • P HASSOMAL-TILLUMAL‑Applicant Versus GHULAM NABI SHAH‑Respondent
  • P GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN Applicant Versus THE CROWN‑ Opponent