2007 PLP 222 (SCMR)
BRANCH MANAGER, MESSRS UNITED REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 222 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Mian Shakirullah Jan and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ |
| Parties | BRANCH MANAGER, MESSRS UNITED REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 222 (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 2007 PLP 222 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Mian Shakirullah Jan and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 222 (SCMR) (BRANCH MANAGER, MESSRS UNITED REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Saeed Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. for the State.
- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner's officers/officials are not safe to travel from Peshawar to Karak, therefore, they submitted an application for the transfer of the case but the same has been declined without any justification. Learned Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. stated that he has no objection if the case is transferred. The respondent appeared in person who stated that he is an Advocate and is also running the business of Electronics, through his sons opposed the application and stated that he has already furnished guarantees in the High Court, therefore, this case may not be transferred.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 20-6-2005 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr1. MIA No.9 of 2005).
S. 526
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Parties were locked in with each other in criminal and civil litigation
Respondent had filed suit for recovery of amount against petitioner and petitioner had filed criminal case against respondent under S.489-F, P.P.C.
Civil suit filed by respondent having been transferred by High Court from place 'K' to place 'P', petitioner had requested that his criminal case against respondent be also transferred, but, High Court declined to do so by impugned judgment
Held it was appropriate and in the interest of justice, if both civil and criminal cases be heard at one station
Since civil suit filed by respondent had already been transferred to place 'P', no injustice would be caused to respondent, if case of petitioner be also transferred from place 'K' to place 'P'
Petition was converted into appeal and impugned judgment was set aside and case was transferred accordingly. Muhammad Saeed Khan, Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. for the State. Arbab Gul, Respondent No.2 in person.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, C.J.
This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 20th June, 2005 whereby learned Peshawar High Court declined to transfer the case arising out of F.I.R. No.70, dated 10th April, 2004 Police Station, Karak to Peshawar.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that the parties are locked with each other in criminal and civil litigation. The respondent has filed Suit No.61 of 2004 against the petitioner-Company for recovery of Rs.60,000 and the petitioner has filed criminal case against him under section 489-F, P.P.C. The Civil suit has been transferred from Karak to Peshawar by the High Court for the detailed reasons mentioned in order dated 10th January, 2005. The petitioner requested that the criminal case filed by them against the respondent be also transferred but the High Court declined to do so vide the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner's officers/officials are not safe to travel from Peshawar to Karak, therefore, they submitted an application for the transfer of the case but the same has been declined without any justification. Learned Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. stated that he has no objection if the case is transferred. The respondent appeared in person who stated that he is an Advocate and is also running the business of Electronics, through his sons opposed the application and stated that he has already furnished guarantees in the High Court, therefore, this case may not be transferred.
4. After having gone through the facts and the circumstances, we consider it appropriate and in the interest of justice, if both these cases i.e. civil and criminal are heard at one station. Since civil suit filed by the respondent has already been transferred to Peshawar, therefore, no injustice would be caused to the respondent if this case is also transferred from Karak to Peshawar. Order accordingly.
5. As a result of above discussion, Criminal Petition No.298 of 2005 is converted into appeal and is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the case is ordered to be transferred from Karak to Peshawar with the observation that both the cases be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge who would transfer the same to competent Court for decision. H.B.T./B-3/SC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.