PLD 1965

P L D 1965 (W (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA KHAN‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 76 of 1963, decided on 13th July 1964.
Honorable Judges
Jamil Hussain Rizvi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1965 (W (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members Jamil Hussain Rizvi, J
Parties MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA KHAN‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 (W (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 (W (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Jamil Hussain Rizvi, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 (W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA KHAN‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • M. H. Junejo for Petitioner.
  • Date of hearing : 13th July 1964.

Headnotes / Summary

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 561‑A‑Abuse of processRegistration of case four years after incident‑No ground for disallowing prosecution‑Mere fact that prosecution evidence not concluded and case pending for about one year‑No ground for quashing proceedings. Ghulam Qadir v. The State P L D 1963 Lah. 32 distinguished. Azizullah for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Ghulam Qadir v. The State P L D 1963 Lah. 32 distinguished. M. H. Junejo for Petitioner. Azizullah for the State. Date of hearing : 13th July 1964. A case under sections 408, 420 and 477‑A, P. P. C. is pending against the petitioner in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Khan Junejo, Additional City Magistrate, Karachi. The petitioner has filed this application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashing of those proceedings.

2. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was tried in several other cases of a similar nature, the proceeding in those cases terminated either by discharge or acquittal and even in some cases after investigation the cases were cancelled at the instance of the police. That this case has been filed against the petitioner in order to harass him. That the facts on which this case is based had come to the knowledge of the investigating officer in the year 1957 but no case was registered against him till the 7th of August 1961, when the F. I. R. in the present case was registered. That the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ghulam Qadir v. The State (P L D 1963 Lah. 32). I am afraid that on the allegations of the petitioner no case is made out for quashing the proceedings. Even if it is accepted that the facts on which the present case is based had come to the knowledge of the investigating officer in other cases the mere fact that no case was registered then would be no ground not to allow the petitioner's prosecution for the offence at the present time. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner along with Hashmat Ullah Siddiqi while working as Executive Officer, and S. D. O. respectively in P. E. C. H. Society in May 1956, made false entries in the office record of the said Society and got prepared a bogus bill No. 1086 dated the 27th of May 1961, for Rs. 6,274‑4‑0 in the name of Muhammad Yusuf for some works which were never carried out by him or his father Abdul Hamid, Contractor. It is alleged that the accused got payment of the amount by means of Cheque No. 20SK‑558995, dated the 27th of May 1956, for this amount from the Society in the name of Muhammad Yusuf and obtained its payment through the account of Hashmat Ullah Siddiqi. The allegations are of a very serious character. As soon as the case was registered it has been put in Court without undue delay. There is no doubt that it has been pending in the Court of the learned Magistrate for about a year and the prosecution evidence has not yet been concluded, but that also is no ground for quashing the proceedings. The ruling cited by the learned counsel has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the case was registered and it remained under investigation for a period of over seven years. It has been remarked in the authority that the delay in the investigation of a case was as much an abuse of the process as was the pendency of a criminal proceedings for a period of seven years. Consequently the proceedings in that case were quashed. In the present case no case was registered in the year 1957. This case has been registered in the year 1961 and promptly it was put in Court after investigation. The contention of the learned counsel that the period from 1957 to 1962 should also be counted as having been spent in the investigation of this case is untenable because there was no case registered against the petitioner in the year 1957. The case, as alleged in the complaint, is based on documentary evidence and is of a very serious character. In the circumstances of the present case, I do not regard this to be a fit case for quashing the proceedings. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the disposal of this case and to send a monthly report of the progress in this case to the High Court. K.B.A. Petition dismissed.