1993 P Cr (PLP)
THE STATE — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THE STATE — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (THE STATE — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 249-A & 417
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.447/148/149
Appeal against acquittal could be filed in cases of heinous nature and that of public importance or in cases where cruelty of extreme nature had taken place
Only offence reported against accused persons was that they had violated demarcation of land
Apart from the fact that order of acquittal was passed on ground that despite sufficient opportunities had been given, prosecution failed to produce witnesses, other important aspect was that criteria laid down for filing appeal against acquittal of accused had not been cared of by prosecution
In absence of good ground for interference in judgment of acquittal passed by Court below appeal against acquittal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 249-A & 417
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.447/148/149
Appeal against acquittal could be filed in cases of heinous nature and that of public importance or in cases where cruelty of extreme nature had taken place
Only offence reported against accused persons was that they had violated demarcation of land
Apart from the fact that order of acquittal was passed on ground that despite sufficient opportunities had been given, prosecution failed to produce witnesses, other important aspect was that criteria laid down for filing appeal against acquittal of accused had not been cared of by prosecution
In absence of good ground for interference in judgment of acquittal passed by Court below appeal against acquittal was dismissed. Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, AA.-G. for the State. Acquittal of the respondents under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 25-11-1991, by M.I.C. Lahore, in a case under section 447/148/149, P.P.C., registered on 12-7-1989, has been challenged through this appeal by the State. The order of acquittal was passed on the ground that in spite of the fact that a long period had passed but the witnesses had failed to turn up.
2. The grievance of the State (appellant) is that one of the accused had remained absent for a sufficiently long time and that learned trial Magistrate did not resort to coercive measures.
3. It is true that one of the accused i.e. Maqbool had remained absent for quite a few dates but it is also a fact that all the accused liable to be tried, had appeared on eight dates, excluding the one, on which the impugned judgment was passed, and the witnesses had not appeared except on one date. Once non bailable warrants were: also issued against the witnesses. One of the accused was reported to have been murdered during the pendency of the case.
4. Apart from the fact that the order of acquittal was passed on the ground that in spite of sufficient opportunities having been given, the State failed to produce the witnesses, the other important aspect is that the criteria laid down for filing appeal against acquittal has not been cared of. In that, instructions are, that the appeals against acquittal should be filed in cases of heinous nature and that of public importance, or in case where cruelty of extreme nature has taken place. In the case, in hand, the only offence reported was that the accused had violated demarcation of the land. There appears to be no good ground for interference in the judgment of acquittal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-223/L Appeal dismissed.