2009 PLP 2226 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus S. H.O. — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2226 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Pervaiz Inayat Malik, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus S. H.O. — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Forest Act (XVI of 1927) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2226 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Forest Act (XVI of 1927) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 2226 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Pervaiz Inayat Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2226 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus S. H.O. — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sagheer Ahmad Bhatti, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.62 & 68
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.411/109
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Quashing of F.I.R.
Forest Department agreed to compound the case subject to petitioner's deposit of price of alleged stolen wood
Under the provisions of S.62 of the Forest Act, 1927 and under the compromise the Forest' Department having received the price of alleged stolen woods, in view of S.68 of the Forest Act, 1927, no case could be ,registered nor could the petitioner be penalized twice for same offence
Further prosecution of the petitioner in respect of the same offence, in circumstances was unreasonable, mala fide and would amount to punishing the petitioner twice for the same offence. 1987 PCr.LJ 452 ref. Mian Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, Dy. P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J.--The petitioner seeks quashing F.I.R. No.213 of 2007 dated 27-4-2007 registered at Police Station Gago, District Vehari under sections 411/109, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused loss to the State Exchequer by stealing woods from the forest.
3. It is inter alia contended that under the provisions of section 62 of the Forest Act, the department received the price of the alleged stolen woods and effected compromise with the petitioner by receiving Rs.69,000 and that in view of section 68 of the Forest Act, 1927 no case could be registered nor could the petitioner be penalized for twice. Places reliance upon the law laid down by this Court in 1987 PCr.LJ 452.
4. Conversely learned Deputy Prosecutor-General opposes the submissions made at Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, had no answer to the point of law urged by him.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Almost similar proposition came under discussion before this Court in the case- law referred to supra by the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein it was observed that once the Forest Department having agreed to compound the case subject to petitioner's payment of penalty imposed upon him the offence if any relating to theft of wood stood sorted out and settled according to rules and regulations of the department. It was further observed that further prosecution of the petitioner in respect of same offence under section 379, P.P.C. is an attempt to vex the petitioner twice for the same offence.
7. Admittedly the Forest Department agreed to compound the case subject to petitioner's deposit of Rs.69,000 only to which there is no denial of the fact. Further prosecution of the petitioner, therefore, in my considered view in respect of the same offence is unreasonable, mala fide and amounts to punishing the petitioner twice for the same offence. In my above views, I am also fortified by law laid down in 1979 PCr.L.J 452.
8. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed and the F.I.R. impugned is hereby quashed.
9. With these observations this petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M-563/L F.I.R. quashed.