P L D 2002 Lahore 149 (PLP)
IKRAM ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2002 Lahore 149 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | IKRAM ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2002 Lahore 149 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2002 Lahore 149 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2002 Lahore 149 (PLP) (IKRAM ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 8th August, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 295‑B‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Case was registered against the accused under 5.295‑B, P.P.C. on allegation that he had burnt the Holy Qur'an‑‑‑After investigation of the case report under 5.173, Cr.P.C. was prepared and was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate who, in view of heinous nature of the offence, referred the matter to the Sessions Judge‑‑ Sessions Judge without assigning any reason found that instead of S.295‑B, P.P.C. offence had been made under 5.295‑A, P.P.C. which was included in the Schedule of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Allegation levelled against the accused fell within the mischief of S.295‑B, P.P.C. and S.295‑A, P.P C. was not applicable in the case‑‑‑Orders of the Courts below were set aside, in circumstances. Muhammad Aslam Sumra for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner namely Ikram Ullah Khan son of Islam Khan has challenged the order dated 23‑5‑2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, whereby section 295‑B, P.P.C. was substituted with section 295‑A, P.P.C. and it was held that the case was triable by the Special Court, constituted under the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. The brief facts leading to the present revision are that a case F.I.R. No.63 of 2000 was registered under section 295‑B, P.P.C. against the petitioner at Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan on 3‑2‑2000. Succinctly the allegation against the petitioner was that he most unfortunately, burnt the Holy Qur'an.
3. After the investigation of the case a report under section 173, Cr.P.C./Challan was prepared and submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Arifwala, who vide his order, dated 5‑5‑2000 referred the matter to the Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, as according to him the offence was of the heinuous nature.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, without assigning any reason held that instead of section 295‑B, P.P.C., section 295‑A, P.P.C., was made out, which was included in the Schedule of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997. Thereafter another report under section 173, Cr.P.C./Challan was prepared by the Police, wherein section 295‑B, P.P.C. was submitted with section 295‑A, P.P.C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A bare perusal of section 295‑B, P.P.C. makes it manifest that the allegation levelled against the petitioner squarely fell within the mischief of A this section which is being reproduced:‑‑ Section 295‑B. P.P.C. "Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur'an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life. ". Therefore, the provisions of section 295‑A, P.P.C. are not attracted in the circumstances of the case.
6. A perusal of the Schedule of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, 1997, shows that section 295‑B, P.P.C., has not been mentioned in it. It will be not out of the context to mention here that section 295‑A, P.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for life, while section 295‑A, P.P.C. punishable for a term which may extend to 10 years.
7. For what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that in the circumstances of the case only the provisions of section 295‑B, P.P.C. are attracted and section 295‑A, P.P.C. is not applicable in the case. I, 13 therefore, accept this revision and set aside the orders, dated 23‑5‑2000 and 5‑5‑2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pakpattan and the Magistrate section 30, Arifwala, respectively H.B.T./1‑92/L Revision accepted.