1996 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. SOSAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | Mst. SOSAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. SOSAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ramzan Khokhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 10/11‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.540‑A & 439‑‑ Dispensation with appearance of accused‑‑‑Trial Court had exempted the lady accused from appearance before it on the undertaking of her counsel to ensure her presence if so required‑‑‑Such order of Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality justifying interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Revision petition was dismissed in limine accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent Criminal Revision No.393 of 1995, decided on 23rd October, 1995. ‑‑‑‑S. 10/11‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.540‑A & 439‑‑ Dispensation with appearance of accused‑‑‑Trial Court had exempted the lady accused from appearance before it on the undertaking of her counsel to ensure her presence if so required‑‑‑Such order of Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality justifying interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Revision petition was dismissed in limine accordingly. Muhammad Ramzan Khokhar for Petitioner. It is admitted by learned counsel that though the order impugned is not without jurisdiction and is discretionary yet the discretion has not been exercised properly. A perusal of the order, dated 23‑8‑1995 whereby the petitioner was given exemption from appearance before the Court shows that it was passed on the undertaking of her counsel namely Rana Muhammad Ashraf to ensure her presence, if so required by the Court. No illegality has, thus, been committed by the trial Court by passing the impugned order so as to justify interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./S‑477/L Revision dismissed.