2006 PLP 1766 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION LAKSEEN, SARGODHA and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1766 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION LAKSEEN, SARGODHA and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1766 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1766 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1766 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ALI — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION LAKSEEN, SARGODHA and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.295-A & 298
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner had invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court for issuance of direction to S.H.O. concerned for registration of case against respondents
Grievance of petitioner was that respondents had announced in the village and made proclamation by wall chalking on the walls of village that petitioner who was a tubewell operator had changed his religion along with his wife
Petitioner was a true Muslim who had full faith in Islam and follower of "Hazrat Muhammad" (peace be upon him)
Mere bald statement of some persons about some Muslims, was not sufficient to believe that the person had ceased to be a Muslim, and had adopted some other religion, unless said person himself should confess the same
Since there was no allegation or confession of petitioner that he had embraced some other religion and had ceased to be a Muslim, from the allegation levelled by respondents, no cognizable offence was constituted and case was not covered within provisions of Ss.295-A & 298, P.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.
The petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of direction to the respondent No.1, for registration of the case against respondents Nos.3 to 7.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents Nos.3 to 7, have announced in the village and made proclamation by wall chalking on the walls of the village that the petitioner, who is tubewell operator has changed his religion.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is a tubewell operator and is true Muslim and has full faith in Islam and follower of "Hazrat Muhammad" (peach be upon him). The allegation is that respondent has made wall chalking on the walls of the village that the petitioner and his wife under the greed of an amount of Rs.90 have changed their religion, is not covered within the provisions of sections 295-A and 298, P.P.C. A mere bald statement of some persons about some Muslims, is not sufficient to believe that person has ceased to be a Muslim and he has adopted some other religions unless that person/Muslim himself confesses it. Since there is no allegation of confession of the petitioner that he embraced some other religion and ceased to be a Muslim, therefore, from the allegation levelled by the respondents, no cognizable offence is constituted.
4. This petition being devoid of force, is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-1422/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.