1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone and Ijaz Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IRSHAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone and Ijaz Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IRSHAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Anwar for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Court's order, non‑compliance of‑‑Court ordering for delivery of possession to official liquidator‑‑Order allegedly not complied with by accused‑‑Accused making categorical statement at bar about handing over of possession‑‑Order of Court for delivering possession, having been complied with and there was no disobedience, conviction and sentence set aside in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.‑‑The appellant was in possession of a residential quarter which is the property of United Textile Mills, Vehari Road, Multan, now under liquidation. It is discernible from the available record that he was directed to hand over the possession of the premises in his possession to the official liquidator and he also gave an undertaking to comply with the orders of the Court.
2. On 28‑6‑1987, when the matter came up for hearing before the learned Company Judge, the appellant himself was absent, but ‑b is learned counsel made a statement at the Bar that the appellant had already parted with the possession. However, the learned counsel for the purchaser, controverted this assertion.
3. This led the learned Company Judge to take the view that the direction of the Court was ignored and the undertaking not complied with. He proceeded under section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 and awarded one month's simple imprisonment to the appellant. This order is under challenge in this I.‑C.A.
4. On the asking of the Bench, Mr. Khalil Ramdey, the learned A.‑G. alongwith Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, the learned Addl. A.‑G. has entered appearance. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Advocate‑General.
5. The appellant is present in person and he categorically asserts that the possession was handed over by him on 24‑6‑1987 to the Labour Officer of the Mill and, thus there was no disobedience of the orders of this Court.
6. In view of the categorical statement of the appellant at the Bar, we have no doubt that the order in question was complied with by him. Seemingly, on the question of delivery of possession the learned counsel for the purchaser was not properly instructed. In these circumstances, we are inclined to recall the impugned order and we order accordingly. S.A./M‑737/L Order set aside.