1989 M L (PLP)
ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus AMJAD JAVED and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 M L (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus AMJAD JAVED and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 M L (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 1989 M L (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 M L (PLP) (ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus AMJAD JAVED and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Azam Bhaur for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 526‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Transfer of case‑‑Accused influential persons, pressurising complainant not to pursue case against them‑‑Complainant forced to leave his residence and take abode somewhere else‑‑Contentions of complainant not controverted‑‑Complainant, held, would not be able to produce all his evidence if case not transferred‑‑Case transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at another place in circumstances. Aish Bahadur Rana for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Azam Bhaur for Petitioner. Aish Bahadur Rana for the State. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1989. Zafar Iqbal petitioner has moved this petition under section 526, Cr.P.C. for transfer of case F.I.R. No. 376, dated 30‑5‑1987, Police Station City Sargodha, under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979, from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, to a Court of competent jurisdiction in district Jhang.
2. The grounds urged for the transfer of the case are that the accused are very influential and have close contacts with the local police; they had all along been advancing threats to the petitioner not to pursue the case and, in order to A pressurise him, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 committed theft in his house but due to their influence‑ no theft case could be registered, with the result that the petitioner had to leave the city and now he is living in Chiniot. The learned State counsel supports the prayer for the transfer of the case. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that this application has been moved to pressurise the respondents and cause inconvenience to the two women‑accused who were found innocent and have been summoned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the contention that the petitioner has left Sargodha City for good and taken abode in Chiniot. On inquiry, Amjad Javed respondent has rather admitted this fact. In the circumstances, the petitioner has been able to make out a case that he will not be able to freely produce all his evidence if the case is not transferred. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents states that hearing at Jhang will cause great inconvenience, therefore, the case may either be transferred to district Khushab or to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. In the circumstances, the case is withdrawn from the Court of Malik Mumtaz Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. SA./Z‑90/LCase transferred.