1989 PLP 4727 (MLD)
ALI AHMAD Petitioner Versus CH. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4727 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | ALI AHMAD Petitioner Versus CH. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan, 1973‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4727 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4727 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4727 (MLD) (ALI AHMAD Petitioner Versus CH. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad Jalandhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss.325 & 148/149‑‑Cross cases pending before Magistrate‑‑One of accused in complaint' case was acquitted by the Magistrate under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was pending before High Court‑‑Proceedings in cross case were stayed by Magistrate‑‑Order was set aside in revision‑‑Proceedings were not ordered to be stayed by High Court while admitting petition for leave to appeal‑‑Both cases thus had to proceed independently‑‑Proceedings could not be stayed in circumstances
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No.2811 of 1989 decided on 29th May, 1989. ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss.325 & 148/149‑‑Cross cases pending before Magistrate‑‑One of accused in complaint' case was acquitted by the Magistrate under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was pending before High Court‑‑Proceedings in cross case were stayed by Magistrate‑‑Order was set aside in revision‑‑Proceedings were not ordered to be stayed by High Court while admitting petition for leave to appeal‑‑Both cases thus had to proceed independently‑‑Proceedings could not be stayed in circumstances Ch. Bashir Ahmad Jalandhry for Petitioner. The facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional Petition are that respondent No.3 had got a case registered under section 325/148/149 P.P.C. against the petitioners which is pending in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Police Station City Renala Khurd, District Okara. Ali Ahmad petitioner also filed a complaint with regard to the same incident, and respondent No.3 with others was summoned as accused. Sultan Ahmad respondent filed an application under section 249‑A Cr.P.C. in the complaint case for his acquittal, which was accepted by the, learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the petition for leave to appeal was filed in the High Court assailing the order of the Magistrate which is pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application in the police case registered against him and others, before the Magistrate to the effect that the proceedings in A the said case be stayed till his appeal was decided by the High Court. The petition vas accepted. That order was assailed in Revision before the Sessions Judge Okara, who accepted the Revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. In the present Constitutional Petition the petitioners assail the order of the learned Sessions Judge and pray that a direction be given to the Magistrate for staying the proceedings.
2. I have heard the learned counsel at length. On enquiry, the learned counsel had to concede that no order staying the proceedings before the trial Court was passed by the learned Court which admitted the petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. Both the cases have to proceed independently of each other. I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. S.A./A‑758/K Writ refused.