1994 P Cr (PLP)
HEDAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HEDAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (HEDAYAT ULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Irshad Ahmad Oureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/471/468
Land in question admittedly was owned by complainant's mother who had never executed any power of attorney nor had sold the land
Land stood transferred in the name of accused who could not even account for his possession over the same
Involvement of accused was apparent from the record and he was the beneficiary of the fraud
Judgment & Decree
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/471/468
Land in question admittedly was owned by complainant's mother who had never executed any power of attorney nor had sold the land
Land stood transferred in the name of accused who could not even account for his possession over the same
Involvement of accused was apparent from the record and he was the beneficiary of the fraud
Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Irshad Ahmad Oureshi for Petitioner. Abdul Qayyum Anjam for the State. Date,of hearing: 8th May, 1994. Hidayat Ullah petitioner seeks bail in a case registered with Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore, vide F.I.R., dated 25-11-1993 for offences under section 420/471/468, P.P.C. One Muhammad Irshad with the allegation that his mother Mst. Majeedan Bibi was owner in possession of 56 Kanals 10 Marlas of land situated at Thokar Niaz Beg, Lahore, was registered the case. After the death of his mother, the land in question was mutated in the name of the first informant and other legal heirs. Subsequently, they learnt that 8 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land could not be mutated as the same had been transferred in the name of the petitioner on account of some forged power of attorney.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case has been got registered with an unexplained delay of five years. Submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged fraud, therefore, is entitled to concession of bail. Submits that sections 471 and 468, P.P.C. are non cognizable offences, and as far as section 420, P.P:C. is concerned, maximum penalty provided for it is three years therefore, the petitioner should be allowed bail as a matter of right. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. The petitioner is the beneficiary of the fraud. Petitioner's counsel was specifically asked how the petitioner came into possession of the said land, but no satisfactory reply was given. Admittedly the land in question was owned by A the mother of the first informant who had never executed any power of attorney nor had sold the land. Involvement of the petitioner is apparent from the record. The land stands transferred in his name when it had neither been sold nor got transferred by the owner. No ground for bail is made out. The petition fails, which is dismissed. N.H.Q./H-140/L Bail refused.