2016 P Cr (PLP)
JAN NABI, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER and 11 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAN NABI, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER and 11 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 P Cr (PLP) (JAN NABI, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER and 11 others — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amjad Hussain for Petitioners.
- Deputy Advocate General for State.
- 3. We have heard learned counsel for parties and the learned Deputy Advocate General. The admitted state of affairs is that, by now, police of Police Station Chilas has submitted challan of the case wherein police has charge sheeted three accused in all, out of whom name of accused Isfandiyar son of Ghulam Rabbani and name of petitioner No.12 of this petition is found written in column No.3 while name of Wazir Mohammad Tajwar, is found written in column No.4 of the challan. So petitioners Nos.1 to 11 are not among the accused of the challan.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 406, 409, 420, 471, 201, 202 & 34
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A
Criminal breach of trust, criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, using as genuine a forged document, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, common intention
Judicial Magistrate, discharged 11 petitioners out of 12 from the case
Prosecution having not challenged said order of Judicial Magistrate, their acquittal had attained finality
Trial Court through impugned order, having reversed the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, petitioners had filed quashment petition for setting aside impugned order of the Trial Court
Out of 12 petitioners, impugned order would not operate against petitioners, except one petitioner, who was free to move the court for any relief, if so advised
Quashment petition was allowed to the extent of eleven petitioners and petition stood dismissed to the extent of one petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
Petitioners felt aggrieved from the order dated 3/9/2015 of the Sessions Judge Diamer that he passed in Sessions Case No.112/2015, and filed this petition. Through the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge Diamer recalled/reversed the judgment/order dated 21-11-2014 and order dated 17-11-2014 of the learned Judicial Magistrate Diamer.
2. Police of Police Station Chilas district Diamer chalked FIR No.70/2014 against Mr. Isfandiyar and Wazir Tajwar for the offences described in the said FIR. Police of said Police Station conducted investigation but before conclusion of the investigation, petitioners as well as accused Isfandiyar and accused Mr. Tajwar obtained pre arrest bail. Later on, petitioners Nos.1 to 11 were arrested by the police and were released on post-arrest bail. On 21-11-2014, the Judicial Magistrate Chilas discharged petitioners Nos.1 to 11 from the case. Prosecution did not challenge the said order of Judicial Magistrate and the same attained finality. Through impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge, Diamer reversed the orders of Judicial Magistrate, Diamer.
3. We have heard learned counsel for parties and the learned Deputy Advocate General. The admitted state of affairs is that, by now, police of Police Station Chilas has submitted challan of the case wherein police has charge sheeted three accused in all, out of whom name of accused Isfandiyar son of Ghulam Rabbani and name of petitioner No.12 of this petition is found written in column No.3 while name of Wazir Mohammad Tajwar, is found written in column No.4 of the challan. So petitioners Nos.1 to 11 are not among the accused of the challan.
4. In view of above circumstances, we are of the opinion that impugned order will not operate against petitioners, except petitioner No.12. We further hold that petitioner No.12 is free to move the court for any relief if so advised.
5. In the result, we allow this petition but to the extent of petitioners Nos.1 to 11 and petition stands dismissed to the extent of petitioner No.12. This file be consigned to record. HBT/96/GB Order accordingly.