1991 PLP 2210 (MLD)
IKHTIAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus DILAWAR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2210 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IKHTIAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus DILAWAR and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2210 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 2210 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 2210 (MLD) (IKHTIAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus DILAWAR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tasleem Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379 & 411
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14
Each of the offences under Ss.379 & 411, P.P.C. and S.14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 being punishable with imprisonment for three years accused charged with such offences was rightly granted bail as his case did not fall within the mischief of prohibitory clause contained in 5.497
Observations by Trial Court at the bail stage that the case of accused did not attract S.379 at all was, however, disapproved by the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous/B.CA. Nos.467 and 4M of 1991, decided on 13th July, 1991.
S.497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379 & 411
Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14
Each of the offences under Ss.379 & 411, P.P.C. and S.14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 being punishable with imprisonment for three years accused charged with such offences was rightly granted bail as his case did not fall within the mischief of prohibitory clause contained in 5.497
Observations by Trial Court at the bail stage that the case of accused did not attract S.379 at all was, however, disapproved by the High Court. Tasleem Hussain for Petitioner. Dilawar Khan respondent in Cr. Misc./BCA.No.467/1991 and Gul Gha Jan and Attaur Rehman respondents in Cr. Misc./BCA.No.468/1991 were alleged to have stolen a show-case containing watches and belonging to Iftikhar Khan petitioner herein. They are charged under sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI 1979) (hereinafter to be called as the Ordinance) vide F.I.R. No355 dated 26-4-1991 registered at Police Station, Kabali, Peshawar. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his two orders dated which the respondents stand charged squarely fell under section 411, P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and section 379, P.P.C. was not attracted to their case. I am afraid, this. observation of the learned Add]. Sections Judge is not based on any sound principle and should have been avoided to be expressed. Nonetheless, the offences under sections 379 and 411, P.P.C. are punishable with imprisonment for three years each while that under section 14 of the Ordinance it has been provided that whoever commits theft liable to Tazir shall be awarded the punishment provided for the offence of theft in the Pakistan Penal Code. It would thus be seen that for the offence under section 14 of the Ordinance the respondents if convicted, shall be awarded punishment provided for under sections 379 and 411, P.P.C., which, as stated earlier, are punishable with three years imprisonment.
2. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the respondents have been rightly enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. These two petitions, therefore, stand dismissed in limin . H.B.T./1241/P Petitions dismissed.