2007 PLP 1193 (YLR)
NASEER AHMAD GHUMAN — Petitioner Versus JAMIA MASJID BAGHDADI HANFI RIZVI BRAILVI (REGD.) and 20
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1193 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman and Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | NASEER AHMAD GHUMAN — Petitioner Versus JAMIA MASJID BAGHDADI HANFI RIZVI BRAILVI (REGD.) and 20 |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1193 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1193 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman and Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1193 (YLR) (NASEER AHMAD GHUMAN — Petitioner Versus JAMIA MASJID BAGHDADI HANFI RIZVI BRAILVI (REGD.) and 20). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 114 & O. XLVII
Police Order (22 of 2002), Art. 18(6)
To ask for fair investigation, was the right of each and every citizen
If accused had been asking for the production of some further evidence in his defence during the investigation, he could not be deprived of the same as the purpose of investigation was to collect evidence and the courts had to decide about the guilt or otherwise of accused on the basis of evidence
Direction of High Court in Intra-Court appeal not to consider the portion of the order of Single Judge of the High Court for submission of challan within a week, was outcome of whole order
No order was passed against petitioner at his back as alleged by hint
No ground having been made out for review of the order, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition filed under section 114 read with Order XLVII of C.P.C., the petitioner has sought review of this Court's order dated 12-10-2006 passed in I.C.A. No.290 of 2006.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order review - was passed without hearing the petitioner; that the investigation was already complete and the accused party had also been joined in the investigation according to statement made by the Investigating Officer and only then the direction was passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber for submission of the challan in the Court within a week; that factually a wrong submission was made before this Court; that the application filed by the respondent for transfer of the investigation before the police authorities was not being decided and the order under review was passed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the order under review. It is noticed that through the said order while considering that it was the right of the accused to produce defence before the Investigating Officer before completion of the investigation, only a direction was passed for disposal of the application allegedly moved by respondent No.1 for transfer of the investigation to the D.P.O. and the D.I.-G. as the same was claimed to be kept pending without disposal due to the direction issued by the learned Singe Judge in Chamber for submission of the, challan within a week. Even otherwise under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 the investigation can be transferred by the competent authority. To ask for the fair investigation is the right of each and every citizen. If the accused/respondent had been asking for the production of some further evidence in his defence during the investigation he cannot be deprived of the same as the purpose of the investigation is to collect the evidence and the Courts have to decide about the guilt or otherwise of the accused on the basis of the evidence. The direction of this Court not to consider the portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in Chamber for submission of challan within a week was the outcome of the whole order. We do not find that any adverse order was passed against the petitioner at his back. No ground is made out for review of the order and this petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./N-123/L Petition dismissed.