1980 P Cr (PLP)
NAZIR AHMAD‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1980 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 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 1980 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 P Cr (PLP) (NAZIR AHMAD‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Madad All Shah for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 19th November, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 561‑A read with S. 110/55‑Quashment of proceedings‑ Contention that complaint under S. 110/55, Cr. P. C. having been filed premature without waiting for results of cases pending against applicant, he could not be held a criminal by habit to warrant proceedings against him under S. 110/55, Cr. P. C.‑Contention, held, correct‑Proceedings quashed, in circumstances: Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Madad All Shah for Appellant. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 19th November, 1979. Mr. Madad Ali Shah has pointed out that in the complaint dated `Ah March, 1979 submitted at Market Police Station, Hyderabad under section 110/55, Cr. P. C. out of the 8 cases cited for proving that the appellant was habitual Gunda and Badmash or a smoker of charas or had no other ostensible means of subsistence, Case No 1 has been discharged, cases Nos. 2‑3 under section 379, 380, P. P. C. are still pending. Even the case of Charas is still pending while the case of house trespass has been compromised. Case under section 506, P. P. C. has also compromised and Else case under Sind Crimes Control Act has been quashed by the High 5'ourt. Certified true copies have been produced. The, case under ,actions 353, 225 is pending and the last case shown under section 13‑D Of Arms Ordinance is still pending. It could not be, therefore, said that the applicant is by habit a criminal as the habit requires the proof of conviction in some cases. In these circumstances, it is clear that complaint under section 110/55, Cr. P. C. has been filed premature without waiting for the results of those uses and there can be led no evidence to sustain these proceedings. In these circumstances, proceedings instituted under section 110/55 Cr . P C. on 30th March, 1979 were without any substance, and are therefore, quashed. No one had appeared for the State. Proceedings quashed.