PCRLJ 1968

1968 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD YASIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHIM AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court
Decided Date
4th December 1967
Honorable Judges
A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1968 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court
Bench Members A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J
Parties MUHAMMAD YASIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHIM AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YASIN‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RAHIM AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Hamid Ali Khan Sherwani, Advocate Supreme Court, instruct ed by Nasim‑ul‑Haq Amjad, Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Siddiq & Co., Attorneys for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 302‑Person neither challaned by police nor summoned by committing Magistrate‑Complainant's move in Sessions and High Courts to order summoning of such person unsuccessful‑Complainant's seeking special leave to appeal to Supreme Court to oblige Magistrate to take cognizance of case against accused, held, misguided‑Proper course to file complaint before Magistrate‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 190.

Judgment & Decree

CORNELIUS, C. J.‑Investigating an allegation of murder involving 5 men including the respondent, Abdur Rahim the Police presented a challan in which was shown that they had found no case against Abdur Rahim. The committing Magistrate, in his order committing the other four men for trial, stated that he found no case against Abdur Rahim, and had therefore not summoned him. The complainant moved the Sessions Court and the High Court against this order without success, and now seeks leave to appeal in this Court, to oblige the Magistrate to take cognizance of a case against Abdur Rahim. The attempt is misguided. If the petitioner wishes to pursue the matter against Abdur Rahim, his proper course is to file a complaint against him on which action by a Magistrate is obligatory under the Criminal Procedure Code. Petition dismissed.