1989 PLP 3244 (MLD)
AHMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3244 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | AHMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3244 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3244 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3244 (MLD) (AHMAD HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.435 & 439--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.411--Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14--Trial Court recorded statement of recovery witness in one case and copied the same verbatim in other eleven cases of similar nature against accused--Procedure adopted by Trial Court amounted to clear illegality which could not be cured--Conviction and sentence in all the 12 cases against the accused were set aside and the cases were sent back to Trial Court for fresh trial in accordance with law. Tariq Kamal Qazi for the Petitioner. Syed Zulfiqar Haider, Sheikh Munir Amjad, Azhar Mahmood, Muhammad Mansha, Arif Ali Hazoor, Nisar Khalil, Yasmeen Sehgal, Sh. Ehsan Ahmad, Javaid Shaukat, Asif Chughtai, Malik Amjad and Faiz-ur-Rehman for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Tariq Kamal Qazi for the Petitioner. Syed Zulfiqar Haider, Sheikh Munir Amjad, Azhar Mahmood, Muhammad Mansha, Arif Ali Hazoor, Nisar Khalil, Yasmeen Sehgal, Sh. Ehsan Ahmad, Javaid Shaukat, Asif Chughtai, Malik Amjad and Faiz-ur-Rehman for the State. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, I propose to dispose of the 12 Criminal Revisions Nos. 205 to 216 of 1989 by single judgment.
2. The facts leading to these 12 revisions, briefly, are that one 24-3-1986, Police recovered 22 bicycles from the possession of Ahmad Hayat petitioner as suspected stolen property under section 550, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, different persons appeared in the Police Station and identified the bicycles as their stolen property. On this 12 different reports were drawn up at the Police Station. After investigation, the Police submitted 12 separate challans against the petitioner. The trial Court framed separate charges in 12 cases; recorded evidence of the witnesses in each case and vide single order, convicted the petitioner/accused under section 411, P.P.C. on 12 counts and sentenced him to one year R.I. on each, count with the direction that the sentences shall run consecutively. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed 1.2 appeals which were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 20-3-1988. Hence this revision.
3. Since after hearing the learned counsel, I feel inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, on account of legal infirmity in the proceedings conducted by the trial Court, so I need not to set out the facts in detail and enter into the merits of the case. I find the learned trial Court recorded statement of Muhammad Naeem recovery witness in one case and copied the same verbatim in 11 cases, although this was not permissible under the law. This is a clear illegality which cannot be cured. So the conviction and sentences of petitioners in all the 12 cases arc set aside and the cases are sent back to for fresh trial in accordance with law. The petitioner was on bail in the 12 cases at the time of announcement of judgment and was taken into custody in pursuance of the order of his conviction which have been set aside today. So he will immediately be released from Jail and will remain on bail during retrial on the bail bonds already furnished by him in the trial Court. N.H.Q./A-620/L/ Petition accepted.