1992 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑-‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑-‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YAR and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 448‑‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑‑Criminal house trespass‑‑‑Accused allegedly entered a shop which had no door‑‑‑Offence of criminal house trespass was not constituted as the shop did not fall under definition of house‑‑‑Accused was acquitted in circumstances. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Allah Yar Khan for Petitioners. Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 20th February, 1991. Muhammad Yar and other petitioners stand convicted under section 448, P.P.C. and sentenced to six months' R.I. each.
2. The prosecution case was that the petitioners committed criminal trespass into the shop of Ahmad Hassan complainant. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. Prosecution produced four witnesses. Ahmad Hassan P.W.1, Shaukat Ali P.W.2 and Muhammad Yaqoob P.W.3 are the eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. They stated that the petitioners entered into the shop and fixed a door in it. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied the incriminating circumstances. They produced Muhammad Shafi in defence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since there was no door in the shop, therefore, the petitioners could not have been convicted under section 448, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
5. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that when the petitioners allegedly entered into the shop, there was no door in it, so it was not a building A for the purpose of criminal house trespass punishable under section 448, P.P.C. So, the revision is accepted and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. SA./M‑3031/L Petition accepted.