1969 PLP 227 (SCMR)
ABDUL HADI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1969 PLP 227 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL HADI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 227 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 227 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 227 (SCMR) (ABDUL HADI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Usman Ghani Rashtd, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 10th January 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 11th. Novembr 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 1967). (a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) --Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 27 & 28 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 471 Person obtaining Compensation Book on basis of forged order by Claims Officer‑Could be tried under S. 471, P. P. C. without attracting bar o S. 28 of Act XXVIII of 1958‑General Clauses Act (X of 1897, S. 26. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962) --Art. 58 (3)‑Jurisdiction, question of‑Nigh Court expressing no opinion‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court. Nemo for the State. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The petitioner stands convicted under section 420 and 471, P. P. C. and sentenced under either count to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment to two years and a fine of Rs.
500. It has been found that' the petitioner, on the basis of a forged order purporting to have been made by a Claims Officer, obtained a Compensation Book in the sum of Rs. 39,600 in the name of Mirza Imtiaz Beg, P. W,, with a deffered payment of Rs. 17,
340. Out of the sum a part was utilized by Mirza Imtiaz Beg in the adjustment of the price of a house transferred to him under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and the balance sold to Abdul Khaliq for Rs. 4,
257. It is contended that the offence committed by the petitioner in obtaining the Compensation Book on the basis of a forged order by the Claims Officer was covered by the ingred ients in section 27 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and under section 28 no Court could take cognizance of the offence without the complaint, in writing, made by an officer appointed under the Act. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act provides: "Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence." The petitioner could, therefore, be tried under section 471, P. P. C. A without attracting the bar contained in section 26 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act even if it is assumed though we express no opinion at this stage that the offence committed by the Petitioner was covered by section
27. It is contended that the question raised being one of jurisdiction on which the High Court has expressed no opinion requires further consideration. We grant leave to appeal. Leave granted.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962) --Art. 58 (3)‑Jurisdiction, question of‑Nigh Court expressing no opinion‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court. Usman Ghani Rashtd, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 10th January 1969. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The petitioner stands convicted under section 420 and 471, P. P. C. and sentenced under either count to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment to two years and a fine of Rs.
500. It has been found that' the petitioner, on the basis of a forged order purporting to have been made by a Claims Officer, obtained a Compensation Book in the sum of Rs. 39,600 in the name of Mirza Imtiaz Beg, P. W,, with a deffered payment of Rs. 17,
340. Out of the sum a part was utilized by Mirza Imtiaz Beg in the adjustment of the price of a house transferred to him under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and the balance sold to Abdul Khaliq for Rs. 4,
257. It is contended that the offence committed by the petitioner in obtaining the Compensation Book on the basis of a forged order by the Claims Officer was covered by the ingred ients in section 27 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and under section 28 no Court could take cognizance of the offence without the complaint, in writing, made by an officer appointed under the Act. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act provides: "Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence." The petitioner could, therefore, be tried under section 471, P. P. C. A without attracting the bar contained in section 26 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act even if it is assumed though we express no opinion at this stage that the offence committed by the Petitioner was covered by section
27. It is contended that the question raised being one of jurisdiction on which the High Court has expressed no opinion requires further consideration. We grant leave to appeal. Leave granted.