1995 PLP 1004 (SCMR)
M/s. MTM INTERNATIONAL BEARING INDUSTRY LTD.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AIZAD HASAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1004 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | M/s. MTM INTERNATIONAL BEARING INDUSTRY LTD.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AIZAD HASAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1004 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1004 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1004 (SCMR) (M/s. MTM INTERNATIONAL BEARING INDUSTRY LTD.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AIZAD HASAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jawahar Naqvee, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th January, 1994
- 2. We have heard Mr. Jawahar Naqvee, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑3‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 256‑Q/91). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 500 & 506/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence of the complainant had issued process against the accused which prompted them to move the High Court successfully for quashing of the proceedings without waiting for the recording of evidence in the case‑‑‑Accused did not appear to have specifically controverted the factual allegations made by the complainant regarding the issuance of letter to Central Board of Revenue containing the imputations against him-‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that the intention of the accused in issuance of the said letter regarding the imputation being bona fide or malla fide could only be properly gone into after some evidence had been recorded in the case and no positive finding was possible on the bald allegation and counter‑allegation of the parties.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 500 & 506/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence of the complainant had issued process against the accused which prompted them to move the High Court successfully for quashing of the proceedings without waiting for the recording of evidence in the case‑‑‑Accused did not appear to have specifically controverted the factual allegations made by the complainant regarding the issuance of letter to Central Board of Revenue containing the imputations against him-‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that the intention of the accused in issuance of the said letter regarding the imputation being bona fide or malla fide could only be properly gone into after some evidence had been recorded in the case and no positive finding was possible on the bald allegation and counter‑allegation of the parties. Jawahar Naqvee, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1994 WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑M/s. M.T.M. International Bearing Industry Limited, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 20‑3‑1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby the proceedings initiated against Aizad Hasan and others, respondents 1 to 3 herein, under sections 500 and 506/34, P.P.C. through a complaint were quashed under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C.
2. We have heard Mr. Jawahar Naqvee, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
3. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate before whom complaint was filed after recording preliminary evidence of the complainant, issued process against the respondents which prompted them to move the High Court for quashment of the proceedings without waiting for the recording of evidence in the case. It appears from the perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court that the respondents did not specifically controvert the factual allegations made by the petitioner regarding the issuance of letter to the Central Board of Revenue containing the imputations against the petitioner. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the intention of the respondents in issuance of the aforementioned letter as to whether they were bona fide or mala fide could only be properly gone into after some evidence had been recorded in the case and no positive finding was possible on the bald allegations and counter‑allegations of the parties.
4. Leave is granted to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. NHQ/M‑2162/5 ` Leave granted.