2009 PLP 89 (YLR)
BACHAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 89 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Zia G. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | BACHAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 89 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 89 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Farrukh Zia G. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 89 (YLR) (BACHAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Mahar, Asstt. Advocate-General Sindh.
- In my view the alternate prayer sought by the applicant that the case should be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh trial, is more plausible specially in light of the fact that Order, dated 19-5-2008 of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur in Sessions Case No.242 of 2004 is not a speaking order. Mr. Mahar, learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh for the State, has vehemently opposed this Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. However, I am of the view that this is a fit case to be remanded back; hence the same is ordered accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)
Application for
Alternate prayer sought by the applicant that the case should be remanded to the Trial Court for fresh trial, was more Plausible, especially when impugned order Passed by the Trial Court was not a speaking order
Case being fit to be remanded same was ordered accordingly. Pervez Ali Ghumro for Applicant. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar, Asstt. Advocate-General Sindh.
Judgment & Decree
FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J.
This Criminal Misc. Application under section 561-A Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant, in which he has sought to set aside/quash the impugned Order, dated 19-5-2008. Brief facts of the case are that on a spy information on 31-1-2004 at 1300 hours police raided the place of incident where an encounter took place with the culprits, which continued for about 10 minutes. Thereafter two accused persons ran away but the present applicant was apprehended in an injured condition along with one unlicensed Kalashinkov and Magazine and a case under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance was registered against him. The detailed Judgment, dated 14-4-2008 has been passed wherein, the applicant was convicted under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, and sentenced him to undergo RI for four years plus fine of Rs.10,
000. Mr. Ghumro, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied upon sections 4 & 5 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 and has stated that an order requiring him or her to be under the supervision of a probation officer for such period, not less than one year or more than three year. Thereafter the order was passed on 19-5-2008 which is impugned in this Application, whereby the Application of the applicant to the effect that he should be put on probation, was rejected. In my view the alternate prayer sought by the applicant that the case should be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh trial, is more plausible specially in light of the fact that Order, dated 19-5-2008 of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur in Sessions Case No.242 of 2004 is not a speaking order. Mr. Mahar, learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh for the State, has vehemently opposed this Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. However, I am of the view that this is a fit case to be remanded back; hence the same is ordered accordingly. Application stands disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./B-48/K Case remanded.