2011 CLD 1189 (PLP)
Mian MUHAMMAD IMRAN — Complainant Versus PARAMOUNT ENGINEERING WORKS — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 CLD 1189 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Environmental Tribunal, Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD IMRAN — Complainant Versus PARAMOUNT ENGINEERING WORKS — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 CLD 1189 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 CLD 1189 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Environmental Tribunal, Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 CLD 1189 (PLP) (Mian MUHAMMAD IMRAN — Complainant Versus PARAMOUNT ENGINEERING WORKS — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar H. Awan along with Liaqat owner of Unit for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 11, 12, 13, 16 & 17
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342
Prohibition of certain discharges or emissions
Violation of environmental protection order
Statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. had not been recorded, immediately after the prosecution evidence was completed which could be termed as violation of the mandatory provisions of S.342, Cr.P.C.
Resultantly, the whole trial could be' vitiated
Recording of statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. was necessary before proceedings further
Order accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The only witness of the respondent who remains to be examined is in attendance but the learned counsel for the complainant is on strike at the call of Punjab Bar Council. Adjourned to 20-4-2011 for the evidence of the said witness. If the complainant's counsel does not appear on the adjourned date his right of cross-examination shall abate. (Sd)/- (Sd)/- Khawaja Muhammad Afzal Ch. Khalil (Chairperson) (Member Tech.) I have gone through the order sheet of the case and find out that the statement of accused under section 342 has not been recorded immediately after the prosecution evidence is completed. This may be termed as great violation of the mandatory provision of section 342, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the whole trial can be vitiated. Therefore, in my view it is necessary to record the statement of the respondent accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. before proceeding further. (Sd)/- Ms. Gulzar Butt (Member Legal) H.B.T./8/ET Order accordingly.