P L D 1961 (W (PLP)
GUL MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Petitioners Versus Mst. KUBRA BEGUM‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | J. Ortcheson and Habibullah, JJ |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Petitioners Versus Mst. KUBRA BEGUM‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: J. Ortcheson and Habibullah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 (W (PLP) (GUL MUHAMMAD ETC.‑Petitioners Versus Mst. KUBRA BEGUM‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- K. Abdul Wahab for petitioner
- Khawaja Muhammad for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 14th March 1961.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--S. 145 (1)‑-Mere information regarding apprehension of breach of peace not enough‑Magistrate can proceed under S. 14J (1), if satisfied that information is true. It is not sufficient that a Magistrate should have received information that a breach of the peace is apprehended, it being further imperative that he should be satisfied that the informa tion is true. If it can be ascertained from the material on the record that the Magistrate was so satisfied, the mere absence of a preliminary order would, no doubt, not render his subsequent proceedings illegal, but the difficulty is that unless a preliminary order is recorded stating that the Magistrate is satisfied of the existence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace and giving his reasons for being so satisfied, it is not easy for a superior Court to discover whether this essential condition for the assumption of jurisdiction has been fulfilled. The mere fact that a Magistrate issues notice to the parties to attend his Court and put in written statements by no means necessarily implies recognition on his part that his jurisdiction depends on the existence of a danger of a breach of the peace. Mohan Lal v. Mst. Morni A I R 1933 Pesh. 88; State v. Muhammad Azam P L D 1960 Pesh. 47 ; Abdul Rahman v Emperor A I R 1927 P C 44 ; Ch. Abdul Aziz Khan v. Badri A I R 1948 Oudh 184 and Kapur Chand v. Surai Prasad A I R 1933 All. 264 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 145 (4) and (6)‑Party dispossessed more than two months before date of order Cannot be put back into possession by Magistrate. Where a dispossessed person seeks relief under the pro visions of section 145, Cr. P. C. and the Magistrate passes a preliminary order under section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. more‑ than two months after such dispossession, but by his final order under section 145 (6) puts him in possession, that final order cannot be deemed to be a valid one merely on the grounds that the Court itself was responsible for this delay, and that a party cannot be penalised for the fault committed by the Court. Chinchilada Krishanam Raju v. Chintala Swami Naidu A I R 1927 Mail. 816 (1) ; Ganga Bux Singh v. Sukhdin A I R 1959 All. 141 and Debendra Chandra Sarkar v. Khodaram Sangma P L D 1951 Dacca 59 ref. Muhammad All, A. A. G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
HABIBULLAH, J.
I agree. K.M.A. Reference answered.