1993 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD 10BAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD 10BAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (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 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD 10BAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- La1 Khan Baloch for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S 439
Statement of the witness had shown the prima facie involvement of the accused petitioner in the case
Trial Court, therefore, was justified to summon the petitioner as an accused
Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Cr. Revision N6.74 of 1992, decided on 1st February, 1992. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S 439
Statement of the witness had shown the prima facie involvement of the accused petitioner in the case
Trial Court, therefore, was justified to summon the petitioner as an accused
Revision petition was dismissed accordingly. La1 Khan Baloch for Petitioner. This is a revision petition against the order dated 14th of January, 1992 passed by Rao Hamid Mukhtar Khan, Additional Sessions Judge at Chiniot, whereby the petitioner was summoned to appear before the said Court as an accused person. It is contended that the petitioner and the other co-accused though named in the F.I.R. were discharged by the Magistrate, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot after recording the stair
Mst. Aysha has summoned the petitioner as an accused.
2. I have perused the statement as well as the order prise learned Additional Sessions Judge. It would not be proper at this stage to express any opinion on merits of the case, lest the same should prejudice the either side. The statement of Mst. Aysha Bibi shows the prima facie a involvement of the petitioner, therefore, the Court was justified to summon the petitioner as an accused. It is however clarified that this observation of this court is tentative m nature, and would not affect the mind of the trial Court to decide the case independently. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-614/L Revision declined.