1987 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kamal Mustafa Bokhary, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Kamal Mustafa Bokhary, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ‑‑Petitioner Versus STATE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Muhammad Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), S.99‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Conviction challenged charge under S.99, West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 properly put‑ Allegation that charge was not put properly belied‑‑No interference called for under S. 561‑A, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 46/Q of 1983, decided on 23rd June, 1983. ‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), S.99‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Conviction challenged charge under S.99, West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 properly put‑ Allegation that charge was not put properly belied‑‑No interference called for under S. 561‑A, Cr.P.C. Ijaz Muhammad Bhatti for Petitioner. This is a petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction of the petitioner under section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance passed by the learned Special Traffic Magistrate in summary proceeding and against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, dismissing revision of the petitioner.
2. It has been argued that the charge was not put to the petitioner, that petitioner was not liable to be convicted under section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance and that in any case petitioner was entitled to count the period during which he remained in detention before the conviction.
3. Petitioner was found driving his wagon with five passengers on foot board. The charge was framed when petitioner confessed his guilt and in summary trial a Special Traffic Magistrate convicted him under section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance and awarded him sentence of 15 days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.100 or in default of its payment to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. His revision failed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I have read the order passed by the learned Magistrate. I find that the charge was properly put. The provision contained in section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance also makes the vehicle being driven in a manner which is dangerous to human life an offence. Therefore, I do not find any ground to exercise my discretion under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. However, the period during which petitioner was detained in custody before the conviction shall count under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. With this observation this petition is dismissed in limine. M. Y.H./3184/1, Order accordingly.