1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus FARID‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | A. Rehman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus FARID‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: A. Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus FARID‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.R. Khalid for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 526‑‑Transfer of criminal case‑‑Transfer of criminal case pressed on ground that accused was employee of a Magistrate and trial Magistrate was being influenced by former‑‑Mere fact that accused happened to be employee of a Magistrate, held, no ground for transfer of case from trial Magistrate‑‑‑ Transfer decreed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8 of 1981, decided on 26th September, 1985. ‑‑‑S. 526‑‑Transfer of criminal case‑‑Transfer of criminal case pressed on ground that accused was employee of a Magistrate and trial Magistrate was being influenced by former‑‑Mere fact that accused happened to be employee of a Magistrate, held, no ground for transfer of case from trial Magistrate‑‑‑ Transfer decreed in circumstances. M.R. Khalid for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 16th September, 1985. Comments submitted by the learned trial Magistrate have been perused. Petitioner's allegation that the learned trial Magistrate is being influenced by his colleague Rai Muhammad Amin, Magistrate Section 30 in the trial of Farid respondent against whom the petitioner had got a case registered under section 14 of the Offences against Properties (Enforcement of Hudood) Order, 1979, has been denied by the learned trial Magistrate in his comments‑‑The mere fact that the respondent h8ppens to be an employee of a Magistrate is no ground to transfer his case from the Court of the learned trial Magistrate because if the petitioner's contention is accepted then there is no guarantee that the other trial Magistrate to whom the case might be transferred would not be approached by the accused's employer. The petition is accordingly dismissed. S.G.D. Petition dismissed.