1991 PLP 249 (SCMR)
DIL AHSAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 249 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | DIL AHSAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 249 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 249 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 249 (SCMR) (DIL AHSAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1990.
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 24-4-1978 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in Criminal Misc. No.1269 of 1976).
S.403--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Respondent had filed a complaint under S. 403, P.P.C. against appellant at Karachi for misappropriation of her dowry articles--Appellant's petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Court at Karachi to decide the matter was dismissed by High Court--Leave to appeal was granted to appellant to consider whether the Court at Karachi had jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by respondent against him.
S.181(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.403--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Respondent had filed a complaint under S. 403, P.P.C. against appellant at Karachi for misappropriation of her dowry articles--Appellant's petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Court at Karachi to decide the matter was dismissed by High Court--Leave to appeal was granted to appellant to consider whether the Court at Karachi had jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by respondent against him--Complainant in her complaint had stated that at the time of her marriage in Karachi the articles of dowry were delivered to appellant with a list thereof and he had not returned those articles to her and had misappropriated the same--Statement of complainant made to the same effect in her complaint was also corroborated by her witnesses--Held, as the allegation made by complainant regarding entrustment was made at Karachi, therefore, Karachi Court had the jurisdiction--Appeal was consequently dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to consider whether the Court at Karachi had the jurisdiction to try the complaint filed against the appellant. `
2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent Mst.Zaib‑un‑Nisa was married to the appellant m Karachi on 26‑3‑1974. The wife then accompanied her husband to Jhelum. She returned to the house of her parents in Karachi for delivery of child. The respondent came to know that her husband had contracted another marriage and also misappropriated the articles of dowry. A complaint under section 403, P.P.C. was filed against the appellant. The appellant moved an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for the quashment of proceedings in the High Court of Sindh which was dismissed on 24‑4‑1978. According to the appellant, no offence had been committed in Karachi, therefore, the Court at Karachi had no jurisdiction. The complainant m her complaint has stated that at the time of marriage the articles of dowry were delivered to the appellant and a list thereof was also supplied to him. The appellant did not return those articles to her and misappropriated the same. In her statement under section 200, Cr.P.C. she reiterated the same facts. She gave the list of articles which was attached with the complaint. The statements of her father Hayat Muhammad and a witness Amir Hussain were recorded under section 202, Cr.P.C. and they have also corroborated the statement of the complainant/respondent. According to section 181(2), Cr.P.C. "an offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received, or retained by the accused person, or the offence was committed". As the allegation made by the complainant regarding entrustment was made at Karachi, therefore, Karachi Court has the jurisdiction. The learned High Court after considering the facts of the case came to the same conclusion. The question of jurisdiction was only raised which was rightly decided. The appeal has no force. The same is dismissed. N.H.Q./D‑82/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.