2005 PLP 1876 (MLD)
MAHMOOD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1876 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAHMOOD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1876 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1876 (MLD)?
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: 2005 PLP 1876 (MLD) (MAHMOOD AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Javed for Petitioner.
- Chaudhry Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.-G. Punjab for Respondents.
- KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---In continuation of my earlier order dated 4-4-2005, the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab, Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana submits that according to (PLD 1993 SC 399) no writ petition can be filed against the revisional order passed by the learned Court of Session. However, further submits that ground (iii) of the petition is legal one because at the time of lodging of the case, the complainant had no authority to do so. Adds that according to the settled law of this Court, retrospective effect cannot be given to a penal provisions.
- 4. As Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab, to be fair to him, has not controverted the submissions made by the leaned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the complainant had no authority to lodge the complaint at the relevant time and that no retrospective effect can be given to a penal provision and as I am also convinced with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the proceedings pending against the petitioner, on the subject-matter, before respondent No.2, are hereby quashed.
Headnotes / Summary
S.561-A
Complainant at the relevant time had no authority to lodge the complaint
No retrospective effect could be given to a penal provision
Impugned orders were consequently set aside and the proceedings pending against the accused petitioner in the Court of Magistrate were quashed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
In continuation of my earlier order dated 4-4-2005, the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab, Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana submits that according to (PLD 1993 SC 399) no writ petition can be filed against the revisional order passed by the learned Court of Session. However, further submits that ground (iii) of the petition is legal one because at the time of lodging of the case, the complainant had no authority to do so. Adds that according to the settled law of this Court, retrospective effect cannot be given to a penal provisions.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the scope of a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is wider than a writ petition. He placed reliance on (1996 PCr.LJ 200).
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also given consideration to the submissions made at the bar.
4. As Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, the learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab, to be fair to him, has not controverted the submissions made by the leaned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the complainant had no authority to lodge the complaint at the relevant time and that no retrospective effect can be given to a penal provision and as I am also convinced with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the proceedings pending against the petitioner, on the subject-matter, before respondent No.2, are hereby quashed. N. H. Q. /M-1189/L Proceedings quashed.