1977 PLP 4 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND 3 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus Sardar BAQIR ALI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1977 PLP 4 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND 3 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus Sardar BAQIR ALI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 4 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 4 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 4 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND 3 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus Sardar BAQIR ALI AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on- Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing : 3rd March 1976.
- Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
- The learned counsel has, however, contended that the firm belonged to appellant Muhammad Younus alone as will appear from the complaint, and the money having been given and received by him only, the complaint against the accused other than Muhammad Younus does not lie. On inquiry, Mr. M. Bilal, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has stated that the receipt was executed by Muhammad Younus alone. Mr. Bilal has also failed to satisfy us that the firm in question is a joint one. In these circumstances we think that the case against appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Badar Younus, Jamal Younus and Pervaiz should be quashed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 21st of February 1975, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 596‑Q of 1974).
Ss. 406/109 & 420/ 109‑Cheating‑Quashment of proceedings‑Firm belonging to accused appellant J' alone and not jointly owned by all accused‑Money complained of given and received by accused Y alone and receipts executed by such accused alone‑Case against accused appellants other than accused appellant Y quashed in circum stances‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A. Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑This appeal by special leave of this Court is from on order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to quash the proceeding in a case registered against the appellants under sec tions 406 and 420 read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code pending before a First Class Magistrate, Chunian, District Lahore. The learned counsel has, however, contended that the firm belonged to appellant Muhammad Younus alone as will appear from the complaint, and the money having been given and received by him only, the complaint against the accused other than Muhammad Younus does not lie. On inquiry, Mr. M. Bilal, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has stated that the receipt was executed by Muhammad Younus alone. Mr. Bilal has also failed to satisfy us that the firm in question is a joint one. In these circumstances we think that the case against appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Badar Younus, Jamal Younus and Pervaiz should be quashed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent that the case will proceed in the Court of the Magistrate, Chunian, against appellant Muhammad Younus only and that the case against the other three accused appellants shall stand quashed. We direct that the case be tried out expeditiously. Appeal partly allowed.