1976 P Cr (PLP)
HIDAYAT SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Ali Kazi, J |
| Parties | HIDAYAT SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 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 1976 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mushtaq Ali Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 P Cr (PLP) (HIDAYAT SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. H. Khan for Petitioner.
- Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 12th February 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 107 read with S. 561‑A‑Security proceedings‑Quashment Report submitted by Police to Magistrate for taking proceedings under S. 107 against A on ground, of his being a dangerous person abusing 'B', cited as a witness in report‑Magistrate, however, issuing notice under S. 112, Cr. P. C. against both A and B and on their pleading guilty remanding them to custody for want of sureties‑Contention that both parties could not be proceeded against jointly in same proceedings by passing a single order under S. 112 nor could they be examined as witnesses one against other‑Entire proceedings, held, irregular, and misconceived‑Proceedings quashed.‑[Witness Quashment]. Usman Ghani, Asstt. Advocate‑General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ S. 107 read with S. 561‑A‑Security proceedings‑Quashment Report submitted by Police to Magistrate for taking proceedings under S. 107 against A on ground, of his being a dangerous person abusing 'B', cited as a witness in report‑Magistrate, however, issuing notice under S. 112, Cr. P. C. against both A and B and on their pleading guilty remanding them to custody for want of sureties‑Contention that both parties could not be proceeded against jointly in same proceedings by passing a single order under S. 112 nor could they be examined as witnesses one against other‑Entire proceedings, held, irregular, and misconceived‑Proceedings quashed.‑[Witness Quashment]. A. H. Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent No.
2. Usman Ghani, Asstt. Advocate‑General for the State. Date of hearing : 12th February 1976. This is a reference by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad recommending that proceedings started under section 107, Cr. P. C. against the applicant as well as a witness cited in the police report by the Special Magistrate, Hyderabad may be quashed.
2. S. H. O. Cantonment Police Hyderabad submitted a report to the Court on 31‑1‑1974 that petitioner Hadayat Shah was dangerous person and he had abused one Abdul Ghafoor and proceedings under section 107 may be taken against Hidayat Shah. The learned Magistrate passed an order under section 112 not only against Hidayat Shah but also against Abdul Ghafoor in the course of one and the same proceedings. After recording the plea of Hidayat Shah and Abdul Ghafoor and stating that they had pleaded guilty the learned Magistrate remanded both of them to custody for want of sureties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has pointed out that both the parties could not be proceeded against by passing a single order under section 112, Cr. P. C. and jointly in the same proceedings nor could the persons proceeded against be examined as witnesses one against the other. The entire proceedings appear to be irregular and misconceived. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General supports the reference which is accordingly accepted and the proceedings are hereby quashed. Proceeding quashed.