1994 PLP 2043 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2043 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2043 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2043 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2043 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qadeer Ahmad Rana for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/467/468/471
No reason, prima facie, existed to disbelieve the allegations levelled by the complainant against his real son and grandson
Complainant's signatures on the questioned power of attorney were found to have been forged
Accused had allegedly deceitfully cheated and deprived their own father and grand-father respectively of his property
Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Waheed Anwar for the State. Malik Amjad Pervez for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioners seek bail in a case registered against them with Police Station City, Daska, for an offence under section 420/467/468/471, P.P.0 The case was got registered by Chiragh Din against Muhammad Rafique Shafaqat All, his son and grandson respectively, with the allegation that he was owner of 20 Kanals of land. Petitioners committed theft of his identity-card and thereafter produced one Nizam-ud-Din before the authority and prepared a forged Power of Attorney of the first informant.. On the basis of the said forged power of attorney petitioner No.1, transferred the land of his father in favour of petitioner No.2, his son. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case against them is absolutely false. Complainant had given power of attorney. Now he has backed out and disowned the same. Submitted that even otherwise the investigation is complete and the petitioner is not required for the said purpose, therefore, may be allowed bail. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. The case was got registered by the first informant against his real son and grandson. There is no reason, prima facie, to disbelieve the allegations levelled by the first informant. Questioned power of attorney was sent to the Handwriting Expert whose opinion is that the signatures of the first informant have been forged. Even otherwise allegations contained in the F.I.R. petitioners have deceitfully cheated and deprived their own father and grandfather respectively of his property. No ground for bail is made out. Petition fails which is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-1682/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.