1993 PLP 1410 (MLD)
Rana KHALIDHUSSAIN — Appellant Versus ABDUL HAQ, S.D.O., WAPDA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1410 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Rana KHALIDHUSSAIN — Appellant Versus ABDUL HAQ, S.D.O., WAPDA and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1410 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1410 (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: 1993 PLP 1410 (MLD) (Rana KHALIDHUSSAIN — Appellant Versus ABDUL HAQ, S.D.O., WAPDA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Awan for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
S-409
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.247
Dismissal of complaint on account of non-appearance of complainant
Complaint filed against accused was dismissed on account of non-appearance of complainant
Accused having been charged with a cognizable offence, Court should have heard both sides and given a finding on merits.
Judgment & Decree
S-409
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.247
Dismissal of complaint on account of non-appearance of complainant
Complaint filed against accused was dismissed on account of non-appearance of complainant
Accused having been charged with a cognizable offence, Court should have heard both sides and given a finding on merits. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi for Appellant. Muhammad Aslam Awan for Respondent No.
1. Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl. A: G. for the State Date of hearing: 20th December, 1992. Rana Khalid Hussain appellant had filed a complaint against respondent No.l, Abdul Haq, SDO, WAPDA, for an offence under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Special Judge Central, Lahore, took cognizance of the case and summoned evidence as well. The case remained pending for quite some time. Ultimately, on 5-10-1.992 the trial Court dismissed the complaint on account of non-appearance of the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the respondent was charged with a cognizable offence, therefore, the complaint could not be dismissed for non-appearance. Learned counsel for the respondent has seriously challenged the proposition. But, when( confronted with the provisions of section 247, proviso 2 of the Cr.P.C., he conceded that the offence was cognizable. In these circumstances, the trial Court should have heard both the sides and given a finding on merits as well. Therefore, the appeal is accepted, the case is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to proceed with the trial: Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 25-1-1993. H.B.T./K-66/L Appeal accepted.