1995 PLP 1108 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KHALIL AHMED and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1108 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KHALIL AHMED and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1108 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1108 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1108 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus KHALIL AHMED and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sumar Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Shah Ahmad Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1. Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑4‑1994 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 1374‑B/1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 380‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail ‑‑‑F.I.R. had been lodged after an unexplained delay of four days‑‑‑Statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. had already been recorded and the trial was likely to conclude soon‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 380‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail ‑‑‑F.I.R. had been lodged after an unexplained delay of four days‑‑‑Statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. had already been recorded and the trial was likely to conclude soon‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Syed Sumar Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Shah Ahmad Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.
1. Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 17th August, 1994. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J: ‑‑Abdul Majeed petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 4‑4‑1994 whereby his petition for cancellation of bail allowed to Khalil Ahmed respondent by the learned Judge in a case under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 380 of the P.P.C. was dismissed.
2. The prosecution version was that on 16‑12‑1993 at about 10‑00 a.m. the respondent trespassed into the house of Mst. Abida Parveen and committed Zina‑bil‑Jabar with her daughter Mst. Saima Azam who was all alone in the house. While leaving the house he allegedly took away ornaments and cash. The matter was reported to the police by Abdul Majeed, maternal grandfather of the alleged victim, on 20‑12‑1993 at 9‑45 p.m. In the F.I.R. he had further stated that on 16‑12‑1993 he and Muhammad Arshad had seen the respondent coming out of the house of his daughter The respondent was allowed bail on the ground that as many as 37 persons of the locality had sworn affidavits to his innocence.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The alleged occurrence took place on 16‑12‑1993 and F.I.R. was lodged four days later on 20‑12‑1993. There is no explanation by the complainant why he did not lodge, the report on the same day when on his own showing he had seen the respondent coming out of the house of his daughter. During the arguments we have been informed that the statement of the respondent under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. has already been recorded and the trial is likely to conclude soon. In that view of the matter we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. The petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑1232/S Leave refused.