1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YASIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YASIN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 307/365/511/148/149
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A
Contention raised was that preliminary evidence in complaint was recorded by the Reader of the Magistrate-- Magistrate had certified the evidence having been dictated by him in the private complaint
Accused had already been summoned and the case was fixed for evidence
Petition was dismissed in limine in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 307/365/511/148/149
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A
Contention raised was that preliminary evidence in complaint was recorded by the Reader of the Magistrate-- Magistrate had certified the evidence having been dictated by him in the private complaint
Accused had already been summoned and the case was fixed for evidence
Petition was dismissed in limine in circumstances. Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioners. ORDER. Contends that the petitioners were summoned by the trial Court in a private complaint filed by the respondent under sections 307, 365, 511, 148, 149, P.P.C. It is contended that the private complaint is a counterblast.
2. The preliminary evidence was recorded by the Reader of the Court. The petitioner moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the trial Court vide his impugned order, dated 13-3-1991. Thereafter he filed a criminal revision which was also dismissed vide order, dated 30-9-1991.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that preliminary evidence was recorded by the Reader of the Magistrate which is not warranted under the law.
4. I have gone through the attested copy appended with the petition. A certificate has been given by the Magistrate that the evidence was dictated by him in the private complaint. The petitioners have already been summoned and the same is fixed for evidence. No ground for quashment. Dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./M-911/L Petition dismissed.