2006 PLP 1668 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD NASIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1668 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NASIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1668 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1668 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1668 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD NASIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ----Ss.3 & 4---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439---Petitioner who was convicted and sentenced under Ss.3 & 4 of Punjab Marriages Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Act, 2003, had contended that impugned concurrent judgments passed against him by two Courts below were against law and facts as the Ordinance had been struck down and he could not be convicted---Petitioner had . further contended that the Trial Court could try him only under Marriages Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000---Additional Advocate General had conceded said proposition and he too submitted that in the circumstances of the case, it was proper that case shall be remanded for decision afresh--- High Court, in view of submissions of counsel of parties, set aside the impugned judgments and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh on merits and according to Marriages Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000.
- Ch. Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.
- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the impugned judgments are against law and facts of the case. He further submits that according to PLD 2005 SC 186, the Punjab Marriages Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2003 has been struck down, therefore, learned trial Court could not convict the petitioner under the said Ordinance. He further submits that learned trial Court could try the petitioner only under the Marriages Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000 (II of 2000), therefore, impugned judgments are liable to set aside and he has prayed for remand of the case for decision afresh on merits and under said Ordinance, (II of 2000). Learned Additional Advocate General, concedes the proposition and he too submits that in the circumstances of the case, it is proper that case may be remanded for decision afresh. As such, in view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and relying upon the case of Ch. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Islamabad and others PLD 2005 SC 186, this revision petition is accepted, impugned judgments are set aside and the case is remanded to learned trial Court for decision afresh on merits and according to Marriages Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner shall be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, he (petitioner) shall appear before learned trial Court on 9-3-2006.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.
Muhammad Nasir has filed this revision petition against the judgment dated 30-1-2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala, whereby, appeal brought by petitioner against the order dated 25-1-2006, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Arifwala, was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that complaint under sections 3 and 4 of the Punjab Marriages Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2003 was filed against the petitioner and learned trial Court vide order dated 25-1-2006 convicted the petitioner and directed, him to pay Rs.1,00,000 as fine or in default whereof to suffer S.-I. for one month. The petitioner filed appeal thereagainst which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30-1-2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala. Hence this revision petition.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the impugned judgments are against law and facts of the case. He further submits that according to PLD 2005 SC 186, the Punjab Marriages Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2003 has been struck down, therefore, learned trial Court could not convict the petitioner under the said Ordinance. He further submits that learned trial Court could try the petitioner only under the Marriages Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000 (II of 2000), therefore, impugned judgments are liable to set aside and he has prayed for remand of the case for decision afresh on merits and under said Ordinance, (II of 2000). Learned Additional Advocate General, concedes the proposition and he too submits that in the circumstances of the case, it is proper that case may be remanded for decision afresh. As such, in view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and relying upon the case of Ch. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Islamabad and others PLD 2005 SC 186, this revision petition is accepted, impugned judgments are set aside and the case is remanded to learned trial Court for decision afresh on merits and according to Marriages Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner shall be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, he (petitioner) shall appear before learned trial Court on 9-3-2006. H.B.T./M-205/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.