2016 PLP 1835 (YLR)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN PARWANA — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1835 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN PARWANA — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1835 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1835 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Malik Haq Nawaz, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1835 (YLR) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN PARWANA — Petitioner Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ehsan Ali for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 3rd May, 2016.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 123-A, 124-A & 153-A
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A
Condemnation of the creation of the state and advocacy of abolition of the sovereignty, sedition, enmity between different groups
Petition for quashing of FIR
Factual and legal controversies, could not be settled down in a summary proceedings in a petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
Question of facts and law involved in the case, could well be resolved after recording of evidence by the Trial Court; as the challan of the case had been put in the court; and the Trial Court had summoned the prosecution witnesses for evidence, petition for quashing of FIR, was declined, in circumstances. Malik Sher Baz, Dy. A.-.G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused Manzoor Hussain under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit in Sessions case No. 40/15, under Sections 123-A, 124-A and 153-A of Pakistan Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28/7/2001 during Oath taking ceremony of newly elected members of "Hamid Group" the applicant/petitioner delivered a hatred speech, which per contents of FIR constituted the above offences.
3. The petitioner moved an application in under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. before trial Court for acquittal from the charges but the learned trial Court declined the petition vide order dated 20/04/2016, hence this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from bare reading of FIR, no offence is made out and the proceedings are sheer of process of Courts and law. He further argued that, the so called sanction was not infact accorded and it was a post dated attempt on the part of Government authorities, as no one could be so active/vigilant, in our present system to meet all the required requirements within a short span of same day, as done in the case in hand. The learned counsel further argued that trial of the case would be nullity in the eyes of law, as there exists no probabity of conviction of present petitioner.
5. On the other hand, the learned Dy. A.G. refuted the arguments of the defense counsel and forcefully argued that a prima facie case is established against the petitioner/accused and the case in hand has been registered after completion of all the codal formalities. The learned Dy. A.G. stated at bar, that challan of the case has been put in Court and there are only 6 PWs cited in calendar of witnesses and the trial of the case will shortly be completed.
6. I heard, both the learned counsel, for the parties at a considerable length and also gone through the record annexed with the petition.
7. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the resolving of some factual and legal controversies, which could not be settled down in a summary proceeding in a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The question of facts and law involved in the case may be well resolved after recording of evidence by the trial Court, as the Challan of the case has been put in the Court and the learned trial Court has summoned the prosecution witnesses for evidence.
8. In view of above, I am refraining to discuss merits of the case to avoid prejudice to either of the parties. The result is that the petition in hand is declined. HBT/32/GB Petition declined.