1993 P Cr (PLP)
JAMIL AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | JAMIL AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP) (JAMIL AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- NA. Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/467/468/471
Accused was named in F.I.R. and specific role of entering mutation on the basis of a bogus sale-deed in contravention of Collector's direction was ascribed to him
Conditions laid down for grant of pre-arrest bail were also not fulfilled in the case
Bail before arrest was refused to accused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
P L D 1983 SC 82 ref. NA. Butt for Petitioner. The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 420/467/468/471, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.386/92, dated 14-7-1992, registered at Police Station North Cantt., Lahore, seeks to be admitted to pre arrest bail.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner was a Patwari Halqa Gohawa and the allegation against him is that he tampered with the revenue record and entered Mutation No.2443, dated 8-10-1991 of village Gohawa on the basis of some forged sale-deed and also by violating the order of the Collector, Lahore.
3. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been roped in this case falsely; he was not aware of the order of the Collector and he is innocent.
4. I have heard the learned counsel at length and have perused the record. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and specific role of entering Mutation No.2443, dated 8-10-1991 in contravention of the direction of the Collector, contained in Roznamcha Waqiati, dated 22-4-1991, is ascribed to him. It was categorically mentioned in the said Roznamcha at Serial No.105 that no sale with respect to the land in dispute be entered from the side of the alleged purchaser, but the petitioner deliberately did so on the basis of bogus sale-deed. Learned counsel conceded before me that the registered sale-deed is a bogus document, because there is no corresponding entry of that document in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Lahore Cantt. Anyhow, he submitted that civil litigation is pending and the revenue authority has cancelled the mutation in question, which was verified by the Girdawar and the Circle Officer. Learned counsel urged that in the presence of this material, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he is entitled to the grant of this extraordinary relief. I have considered the case from this angle as well, but I find that the conditions laid down by the august Supreme Court in P L D 1983 SC 82 are not fulfilled in the present case; hence no case for the grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
5. The petitioner is present in Court and has been taken into custody. Information to this effect be conveyed to the concerned police station forthwith for necessary action. N.H.Q./J-47/L Petition dismissed.