2005 PLP 854 (YLR)
AMAN ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT ALI and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 854 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | AMAN ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT ALI and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 854 (YLR)?
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 854 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 854 (YLR) (AMAN ULLAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT ALI and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian M. Nawaz Dhuddi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.167‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.395‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional Petition‑‑‑Physical remand of accused‑‑‑Respondent/accused persons remained on physical remand with police for six days and thereafter were sent to judicial lock‑up by Magistrate concerned‑‑‑Said order of Magistrate was challenged by petitioner/complainant in revision which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge‑‑‑Order dismissing revision by Additional Sessions Judge had been challenged by complainant in Constitutional petition‑‑‑Additional Sessions Judge, while discussing matter in detail, had declined to interfere in the order of Magistrate holding that Magistrate was justified to refuse further physical remand of respondent/ accused‑‑‑Additional Sessions Judge had found that after giving physical remand for six days, Magistrate had rightly sent accused to judicial lock‑up without extending period of remand‑‑‑No illegality having been committed by Magistrate as well as by Additional Sessions Judge, no interference was called for in Constitutional petition. Ch. Muhammad Suleman, Addl. A.‑G. Punjab on Court's Call.
Judgment & Decree
Mian M. Nawaz Dhuddi for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Suleman, Addl. A.‑G. Punjab on Court's Call. Through this writ petition the petitioner contends that he is complainant of the case F.I.R. No.73 of 2004 dated 25‑3‑2004 under section 395, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Shahbhore District Okara. Further contends that, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were arrested in another case F.I.R. No.179 of 2004 dated 2‑8‑2004 under section 324/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Shahbhore and allegedly disclosed that they had committed the offence reported in the case registered on the complaint of the petitioner.
2. They were arrested and remained on physical remand with the police for six days. Thereafter they were sent to the judicial lock‑up by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Okara vide order dated 10‑9‑2004. The same was challenged through a revision petition, which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Okara on the plea that the learned trial Court was justified to refuse the physical remand of the respondents and thereby the learned trial Court has committed no illegality or irregularity while deciding the matter, which needs no interference hence, the present writ petition, whereby the petitioner has assailed the order dated 4‑12‑2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Okara and has prayed that the learned trial Court be directed to give physical remand of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
3. I have called upon the learned Addl. A.‑G. at this limine stage, who has opposed the prayer put forth by the petitioner vehemently and has supported the impugned order.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Addl. A.‑G. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Okara while discussing the matter in detail has declined to interfere in the order of the learned trial Court, whereby after giving physical remand for six days and without extending the same he sent them to judicial lock up, which is justified and by this way no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court.
5. Instant petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A‑344/L Petition dismissed.