MLD 1986

1986 PLP 2412 (MLD)

IFTIKHAR AHMAD‑‑petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.18'/B/C of 1985, decided on 8th December, 1985.
Honorable Judges
Saad Saood Jan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 PLP 2412 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Saad Saood Jan, J
Parties IFTIKHAR AHMAD‑‑petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2412 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2412 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2412 (MLD) (IFTIKHAR AHMAD‑‑petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑

Representation

  • Khurshid Alam Ramay for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑Ss.156(1)(89), 157 &, 168‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), S.3‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Ten maunds of Charas recovered‑ Official concerned not appearing before Court with relevant record‑ Investigating Agency being not interested in defending application bail granted. Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Deputy Attorney‑General for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18'/B/C of 1985, decided on 8th December, 1985. ‑‑‑Ss.156(1)(89), 157 &, 168‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), S.3‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Ten maunds of Charas recovered‑ Official concerned not appearing before Court with relevant record‑ Investigating Agency being not interested in defending application bail granted. Khurshid Alam Ramay for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Deputy Attorney‑General for the State. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General says that he had specifically advised the official concerned to appear before the Court with relevant record but he has not cared to it. Apparently, the Investigating Agency is not interested in defending this application which is more surprising allegedly recovered from the petitioner was about ten maunds. however, as the Investigating Agency is not interested in defending this application, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rupees two lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Customs. S.A. Bail allowed.