1995 PLP 980 (SCMR)
NATHEY KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KHANU alias KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 980 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | NATHEY KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KHANU alias KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 980 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 980 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 980 (SCMR) (NATHEY KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KHANU alias KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qadeer Ahmed Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Criminal Petition No. 466(L) and 467(L) of 1993).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Criminal Petition No. 466(L) of 1993).
- Mian Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in Criminal Petition No. 467(L) of 1993).
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 1994.
- 2. In support of the above petition Mr. Qadeer Ahmed Siddiqi, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court erred in quashing the above proceedings as the private complaint even disclosed the commission of offence under section 392, P.P.C. which was triable by the Special Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the common order dated 27‑9‑1993 of Lahore High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos. 197 of 1993 and 229 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 365‑A‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1.973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence under S. 365‑A, P.P.C. which had taken place much before the addition of the said section in Pakistan Penal Code‑‑ Complainant had not made any request for the amendment of his private complaint for substituting S. 392, P.P.C. in place of S. 365‑A, P.P.C.‑‑‑High Court's judgment quashing the proceedings pending in the Special Court, therefore, called for no interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑By this common order we intend to dispose of the above two petitions which are directed against the common judgment dated 27‑9‑1993 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revisions Nos. 197 of 1993 and 229 of 1993 filed by the respondents for quashment of proceedings initiated by the learned Judge Special Court (constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act), Faisalabad, hereinafter referred to as the Special Court on the basis of the petitioner's complaint made by him on 4‑1‑1993, allowing the above petition on the ground that the above private complaint was made under section 365‑A, P.P.C. which was incorporated in the Pakistan Penal Code by Ordinance No. IX of 1989 with effect from 3‑9‑1989, whereas offence had taken place on 11‑7‑1987 and hence the Special Court had no jurisdiction as the offence under section 365‑A was not a scheduled offence. The petitioner has, therefore, filed present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition Mr. Qadeer Ahmed Siddiqi, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court erred in quashing the above proceedings as the private complaint even disclosed the commission of offence under section 392, P.P.C. which was triable by the Special Court. His further submission was that merely the omission to mention the above section on the part of the petitioner in the private complaint, could not have been fatal to the above proceedings. The above contentions are devoid of any force. The private complaint was specifically made under section 365‑A, P.P.C. and that the learned Judge of the Special Court took cognizance under the above provision of the above P.P.C. The petitioner did not make any request for the amendment of the above private complaint or substitution of section 392, P.P.C. in place of 365‑A, P.P.C. Admittedly, the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the above offence under the above section, which had taken place much before the addition of section 365‑A in the P.P.C.
3. There is no merits in the above petition. Leave is refused. N.H.Q./N‑391/S Leave refused.