2002 PLP 1075 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1075 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1075 (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 2002 PLP 1075 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1075 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 17th May, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.144‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.188‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Petitioners had violated S.144, Cr. P. C. which was punishable under S.188, P. P. C. as both were riding a motorcycle which was prohibited on that date‑‑‑Magistrate after recording their statements fined them and appeal against the fine was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No questions having been put to the petitioners before recording 'their confessional statements to the effect that for how many days they remained in police custody and if they made confession same could be used against them and even in this regard no certificate had also been given by the Trial Magistrate‑‑‑Both the orders passed by the Trial Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge were set aside by the High Court. Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Petitioners. Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State. Date of hearing: 17th May, 2002. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. He has sent a written request for adjournment being busy before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Short point is involved in this case, so I would like to hear learned State counsel and then to proceed with the case.
2. Facts of the case are that F.I.R. No.401 dated 26‑8‑1995 under section 188 P.P.C. was registered against the petitioners on the statement of Abdul Rauf A.S.I. Police Station Civil Line, Sialkot on the allegation that both the petitioners were violated section 144, Cr.P.C. which is punishable with section 188, Cr.P.C. as they both were driving motorcycle which was prohibited on that date thereafter, both the petitioners were produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, who recorded their statements on 27‑8‑1999 and fined them Rs.100 each in default 15 days S.I. they filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed.
3. Learned State counsel submits that learned trial Court has violated the provision of section 164, Cr.P.C. and moreover, petitioners were in police custody when their confessional statements were recorded. He does not support the judgments of both the Courts below.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, the provision of section 164, Cr.P.C. were violated, as no question were put to the petitioners before recording their confessional statements to the effect that for how many days they remained in police custody and that if they made confession, the same can be used against them and even in this regard no certificate was also given by the learned Trial Magistrate.
5. After hearing the learned State counsel and going through the record, this petition is accepted. Both the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside. S.M.A.H./M‑1447/L Petition accepted.