P L D 2000 Karachi 245 (PLP)
AMIR MALIK and another — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2000 Karachi 245 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMIR MALIK and another — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 4 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Karachi 245 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2000 Karachi 245 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Karachi 245 (PLP) (AMIR MALIK and another — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.M.Aqil Awan for Petitioners.
- Munir-ur-Rehman, Addl. A.-G. for Respondent No.1
- K.B. Bhutto for Respondent No. l
- 2. The crucial ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the final order under section 137, Cr.P.C. in the wake of objection filed by the petitioner on order under section 133, Cr.P.C. directed them to show-cause, learned S.D.M. was required to hold an enquiry by way of recording evidence, however, the enquiry so provided has not been conducted by the learned S.D.M. and final order has been passed illegally. Learned Additional Advocate-General and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 do not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Relevant section 137, Cr.P.C. is reproduced below:
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 133, 134 & 137
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-- Constitutional petition
Conditional order of removal of nuisance-- Conditional order was passed by Magistrate against petitioner to remove alleged nuisance
Magistrate, on filing objection against such order was required under S.137, Cr.P.C. to hold an.-enquiry by way of recording evidence, but he passed the final order without conducting the enquiry
Order passed by Magistrate under S.133, Cr.P.C. could be made absolute only after taking evidence in the matter as provided tinder S.137, Cr.P.C.
No evidence having been recorded by Magistrate before passing final order, impugned order was set aside by High Court and case was remanded to decide afresh after strictly adhering to the relevant law.
Judgment & Decree
Munir-ur-Rehman, Addl. A.-G. for Respondent No.1 K.B. Bhutto for Respondent No. l Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has challenged the orders dated 14th and 18th February, 1998 under section
137. Cr.P.C.
2. The crucial ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the final order under section 137, Cr.P.C. in the wake of objection filed by the petitioner on order under section 133, Cr.P.C. directed them to show-cause, learned S.D.M. was required to hold an enquiry by way of recording evidence, however, the enquiry so provided has not been conducted by the learned S.D.M. and final order has been passed illegally. Learned Additional Advocate-General and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 do not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Relevant section 137, Cr.P.C. is reproduced below: "
137. Procedure where he appears to show cause.--(1) If he appears and shows cause against the order, the Magistrate shall take evidence in the matter in the manner provided in Chapter XX. (2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that the order is not reasonable and proper, no, further proceedings shall be taken in the case. If the Magistrate is not so satisfied, the order shall be made absolute." It is very clear from the above provisions of law that the order shall be made absolute only after taking evidence in the matter. Admittedly, no evidence has been recorded before passing any final order. In view of this legal position, we had set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to learned S.D.M. Manghopir to decide the matter finally afresh after strictly, adhering to relevant law vide our short order dated 9-3-2000 and these are the reasons for the same. H.B.T,/A-46/K Order accordingly.