P L D 1983 Lahore 91 (PLP)
Before Mazharul Haq, J Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1983 Lahore 91 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | - S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-Petitioners fugitives from law-Cannot be given right of audience in quashment petition filed on their behalf by counsel-Case being of joint responsibility arising out of alleged fraudulent transaction no distinction could be made between cases of all three accused hence, held, partial quashment of proceedings not permissible.-Absconder. |
| Bench Members | Mazharul Haq, J |
| Parties | Before Mazharul Haq, J Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1983 Lahore 91 (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 1983 Lahore 91 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the - S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-Petitioners fugitives from law-Cannot be given right of audience in quashment petition filed on their behalf by counsel-Case being of joint responsibility arising out of alleged fraudulent transaction no distinction could be made between cases of all three accused hence, held, partial quashment of proceedings not permissible.-Absconder. bench comprising: Mazharul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1983 Lahore 91 (PLP) (Before Mazharul Haq, J Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Rafique for Petitioner.
- Nasim 1qbal for Respondent No. 2.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-Petitioners fugitives from law-Cannot be given right of audience in quashment petition filed on their behalf by counsel-Case being of joint responsibility arising out of alleged fraudulent transaction no distinction could be made between cases of all three accused hence, held, partial quashment of proceedings not permissible.-[Absconder]. Shaukat Rafique Bajwa for the State. ,
Judgment & Decree
This quashment petition has arisen out of a complaint filed by Syed Mustafa Ali, respondent, against Shah Muhammad and his two sons Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Shafique (petitioners) under section 420/419/468/423, P. P. C. read with section 34, P. P. C. The complaint is pending in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Akram Cheema, M. I. C., Lahore since 26th of January, 1481.
2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the genuineness of the documents questioned in the case hinges on the report of the handwriting expert and the same matter was sub judfce in a civil suit between the same parties; therefore, in older to avoid conflicting decisions the proceedings in the complaint be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. On 22-9-19,42 the proceedings were ordered to be stayed subject to notice to the respondent (complainant), It was also ordered that the accused need not appear before the trial Court till the disposal of this petition.
3. Contesting the quashment petition, learned counsel for the respondent (complainant) contended that when this petition was filed in this Court, Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Shafiq petitioners were absconders before the trial Court and had been proceeded against. Being fugitives from law, they are not entitled to any relief. Reliance was placed on the case Gul Hassan v. The State (PLD1969SC89). The power of attorney filed with the petition bears a thumb-impression without name, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was that of Shah Muhammad petitioner. The power of attorney is alleged to have been signed by Shabbir petitioner. One thing is certain that Muhammad Shafiq petitioner never authorised the counsel to file this petition. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he did not mention at the time of the admission of this petition that the two petitioners had gone abroad, but this fact is not mentioned in the petition. Admittedly, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that the two petitioners were proceeded against by the trial Court for non-appearance at ,the trial. Learned counsel submitted that he was not aware of this fact then. Be that as it may, the fact remains that being fugitives from law, Muhammad Shabbir and Muhammad Shafique cannot be given the right of audiance in this quashment petition.
4. Keeping in view the allegations in this case no distinction in the case of Shah Muhammad can be made, because it is a case of joint liability of the three accused, arising out of the alleged fraudulent transaction to which each accused was said to be a party. Under these circumstances, a case for partial quashment is not made out. For the foregoing reasons, this petition id dismissed. Record of the case be sent back to the trial Court forthwith for further proceedings. s. A, g. . Petition dismissed.