1991 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL BARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL BARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL BARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 228
Accused was convicted in absentia for committing contempt of Court as he ran away from the Court room
No complaint was filed by Presiding Officer of Court before any competent Court nor a reference was made to High Court for proceedings under Contempt of Court Act, 1976
Conviction and sentence of accused being illegal was set aside in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 228
Accused was convicted in absentia for committing contempt of Court as he ran away from the Court room
No complaint was filed by Presiding Officer of Court before any competent Court nor a reference was made to High Court for proceedings under Contempt of Court Act, 1976
Conviction and sentence of accused being illegal was set aside in circumstances. Nemo for Petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal for the State. Date of hearing: 11th February, 1991. Abdul Bari, petitioner, stands convicted under section 228, P.P.C. and sentenced to three months' S.I. The petitioner was a Reader to Senior Civil Judge, Kasur. On the eventful day, he came drunkard in the Court. The Senior Civil Judge asked him to sit in the office, but the petitioner asked him `who are you to direct me, I have been ordered by the District Judge to forcibly occupy the chair of Reader and to take into possession all the files'. On this the Senior Civil Judge issued him notice, but the petitioner ran away from the Court room. Thereafter the learned Judge convicted him in his absence under section 228, P.P.C. and sentenced him to three months' S.I.
2. No one has appeared for the petitioner. Since the revision, after having been admitted, cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that the conviction of the petitioner by the Senior Civil Judge under section 228, on the face of it, appears to be illegal. He could not have convicted the petitioner in his absence. If the petitioner had run away from the Court room the proper course for the Senior Civil Judge was to file a complaint against him before a Court of competent jurisdiction or refer the matter to the High Court for proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act.
3. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond. SA./A-1268/L Revision accepted.