2006 PLP 1640 (MLD)
ZAFAR ABBAS and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1640 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | ZAFAR ABBAS and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Tort |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1640 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Tort as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1640 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1640 (MLD) (ZAFAR ABBAS and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Haider Bakhsh for Petitioners.
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
Case set up by plaintiff was that defendants had maliciously prosecuted him by lodging F.I.R. against him and others, in which he was acquitted
Counsel for defendants had referred medico-legal report showing that one of the defendants had received injuries on his body which was proof that F.I.R. in question was based on an occurrence and was not lodged on account of malice
Defendants had also brought on record certain facts to show that prosecution of plaintiff was not malicious
Counsel for plaintiff was unable to controvert said submissions
Appellate Court had not taken note of material circumstances in the case
Impugned appellate decree in favour of plaintiff being result of misreading of the record, was set aside and decree of the Trial Court was restored.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioners-defendants impugn the appellate decree, dated 14-12-2005, whereby the decree of the learned trial Court, dated 23-2-2005 was set aside and a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs.20,000 as damages on account of malicious prosecution, was decreed.
2. The case setup by the respondent-plaintiff was that the petitioners-defendants had maliciously prosecuted him by lodging case F.I.R. No.293 of 1994, dated 13-11-1994 against him and others in which he was acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioners states, firstly, that the acquittal was only on account of the fact that coercive process was not issued by the learned trial Magistrate to ensure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses. Despite this, six prosecution witnesses were produced and examined in court. Secondly, learned counsel has taken me through the testimony of Muhammad Aslam, one of the petitioners, who appeared as D.W.I. In his cross-examination, a suggestion was put to him that the respondent-plaintiff had confined the said petitioner in his dera. It is contended that this suggestion itself indicates that there was an occurrence leading upto the filing of the criminal case against the respondent and others. It is argued that this itself was sufficient to show that the prosecution of the respondent was not malicious.
3. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the Medico Legal Report which is duly exhibited on record and shows that Muhammad Aslam petitioner No.2 received seven injuries on his body. It was argued that this was also proof that the F.I.R. mentioned above was based on an occurrence and was not lodged on account of malice.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff was unable to controvert the above submissions. He merely argued that the acquittal of the respondent was not only on account of the failure of the prosecution to produce its witnesses. According to him the learned trial Magistrate had noted that there were many discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. I have, however, gone through the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate, dated 22-9-2001 which is Exh. P.2 on the record. It is true that it has been observed therein that there are discrepancies in the statement of P.Ws. However, no instance of such discrepancies has been noted in the judgment. Nor could learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff advert to any.
5. Unfortunately the learned appellate Court has not taken note of the above material circumstances. The impugned appellate decree is a result of misreading of the record. It is, therefore, set aside and as a result the decree of the learned trial Court, dated 23-2-2005 stands restored. H.B.T./Z-27/L Revision allowed.