1983 PLP 902 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 902 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 902 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 902 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 902 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asif Jan, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 6th July, 1973.
- Muhammad Asif Jan, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
- 2. The allegation is that the petitioner, who was a driver of Hasan Ashraf complainant, had stolen the complainant's Toyota car bearing registra tion No. RIG 9500 and in spite of promise to return the car had failed to do so and had in fact sold away the same at Rawalpindi for Rs. 32,000. The petitioner was granted interim pre‑arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, but after hearing the case the learned Judge cancelled the same on 10‑5‑1983. In his petition before the High Court, the petitioner had urged that he was in fact the owner of the car which he had purchased from one Muhammad Zahid Akhtar for Rs. 32,000. The submission did not prevail. When the case had come up before us on the last date, that is, 21‑6‑1983, the petitioner's counsel had relied on a receipt in the sum of Rs.32,000 said to have been executed by Muhammad Zahid Akhtar in favour of the petitioner. We had accordingly issued notice to the Advocate General for 2‑7‑1983 and granted interim bail to the petitioner. On the latter date the Investigation Officer was directed to ascertain the genuineness of the said receipt by summoning Muhammad Zahid Akhtar in the presence of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer, who is present today, states that he did the needful and that Muhammad Zahid Akhtar denied having issued any such receipt in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State also points out that not only a number of criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, but he had also been absconding after 10‑5‑1983 and had to be declared a proclaimed offender on 31‑5‑1983. In the circumstance, w are not satisfied that it is a fit case for interfering with the order of the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the interim bail allowed to the petitioner withdrawn.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 22-5-1983 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1212-B of 1983). -- ART. 185(3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 381-Criminal Pro cedure Code (V of 1898), S. 498-Accused contending that car alleged to have been stolen and sold by him was his property and relying on purchase receipt-Interim bail granted and investigation officer directed to ascertain genuineness of receipt who reported that alleged executants of receipt denies issuance of that receipt to accused-Not only that number of criminal cases were pending against accused but accused absconding and declared proclaimed offender-Interim bail allowed by Supreme Court withdrawn. M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The petitioner, against whom and some others a case under section 381, P. P. C. stands registered, is aggrieved by the refusal by the Lahore High Court to grant him pre‑arrest bail.
2. The allegation is that the petitioner, who was a driver of Hasan Ashraf complainant, had stolen the complainant's Toyota car bearing registra tion No. RIG 9500 and in spite of promise to return the car had failed to do so and had in fact sold away the same at Rawalpindi for Rs. 32,
000. The petitioner was granted interim pre‑arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, but after hearing the case the learned Judge cancelled the same on 10‑5‑1983. In his petition before the High Court, the petitioner had urged that he was in fact the owner of the car which he had purchased from one Muhammad Zahid Akhtar for Rs. 32,
000. The submission did not prevail. When the case had come up before us on the last date, that is, 21‑6‑1983, the petitioner's counsel had relied on a receipt in the sum of Rs.32,000 said to have been executed by Muhammad Zahid Akhtar in favour of the petitioner. We had accordingly issued notice to the Advocate General for 2‑7‑1983 and granted interim bail to the petitioner. On the latter date the Investigation Officer was directed to ascertain the genuineness of the said receipt by summoning Muhammad Zahid Akhtar in the presence of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer, who is present today, states that he did the needful and that Muhammad Zahid Akhtar denied having issued any such receipt in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State also points out that not only a number of criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, but he had also been absconding after 10‑5‑1983 and had to be declared a proclaimed offender on 31‑5‑1983. In the circumstance, w are not satisfied that it is a fit case for interfering with the order of the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the interim bail allowed to the petitioner withdrawn. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.