1970 P Cr (PLP)
KHURSHED-Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shaukat Ali, J |
| Parties | KHURSHED-Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shaukat Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 P Cr (PLP) (KHURSHED-Petitioner Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Hafeez Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 491(2) read with High Court Rules, Vol. V, Chap. 4-F, r. 10-Vexatious pro ceedings-Habeas corpus application found false and vexatious Detenu speaking against applicant-Applicant directed to pay Rs. 200 to alleged detenu and Rs. 300 to person accused of com mitting illegal detention. Detenu with Ramzan Malik, Bailiff. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
S. 491(2) read with High Court Rules, Vol. V, Chap. 4-F, r. 10-Vexatious pro ceedings-Habeas corpus application found false and vexatious Detenu speaking against applicant-Applicant directed to pay Rs. 200 to alleged detenu and Rs. 300 to person accused of com mitting illegal detention. Ch. Hafeez Ahmad for Petitioner. Detenu with Ramzan Malik, Bailiff. Respondent in person. The petitioner Khurshed son of Ilam Din prayed that Hidayat son of Isa was improperly confined and detained by Khushi Muhammad respondent, as he wanted Hidayat to execute a power-of-attorney in his favour authorising him to alienate his property. An affidavit was filed in support of the allegations made in the petition. 2. By my order dated the 24th of September 1969, a writ of habeas corpus was issued to the respondent. A bailiff was detailed to effect the recovery of Hidayat. In p rsuance of the order of this Court, the bailiff recovered Hidayat and has produced him in this Court today. His statement has been recorded. Hidayat in his statement has stated that he was staying of his own free-will with Khushi Muhammad and that the petitioner by filing frivolous petitions was harassing him. The petitioner who was present along with his counsel did not contest the statement made by the detenu. In my judgment it is a frivolous petition. I think that the peti tioner must be penalised for vexatious proceedings. 3. Under section 491(2), Cr. P. C., High Court has been empowered to frame rules to regulate the procedure in cases under section 491, Cr. P. C. Rule 10 of Chapter 4-F, High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V, empowers this Court to make any order for the payment by one side or the other of the costs of the rule. In this view of the matter, I order that the applicant should pay Rs. 500 as costs. Rs. 200 shall be paid to the detenu and Rs. 300 to the respondent. The petitioner has paid Rs. 200 to the detenu and has been afforded time to pay the balance costs of Rs. 300 to the respondent by the 29th of September 1969. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.