1973 PLP 212 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAM AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1973 PLP 212 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAM AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 212 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 212 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 212 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAM AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 13th March 1973.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 13th March 1973, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3421/B of 1972) . Criminal Procedure Code (V of 18'98), S. 497 (S)‑Ball, can cellation of ‑‑ Commitment proceedings adjourned from tine to time for no fault of respondent‑Respondent kept in jail for about a year on such account but later bailed out‑Case, held, not fir for cancellation of bail by Interim order.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 13th March 1973. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD J.‑ The petitioner has been granted leave to consider the question whether the atnendmect sought to be introduced in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by item No. 163 of the Schedule to the Law Reforms 0ijv;ance, 1972, should be deemed to have come into effect imme diately through no late bad been notti6ed by the Provincial Government for the enforcement of the said amendment. He moved an application for the suspension of the order under appeal but this application could not be entertained as the respondent had already been released on bail. The petitioner has now moved an application for interim order for cancellation of bail. Mr. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the respondent has been granted bail on the ground that although more than one year has passed, not much progress has been made in the commitment proceedings. The petitioner has filed uncertified copies of the proceedings before the committing Court and it appears that through no fault of the respondent the commitment proceedings had been adjourned from time to time and the respondent has been kept in jail on that account., After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, wet are satisfied that this is not a fit case in which the bail should bet cancelled by an interim order. The respondent will remain can bail during the pendency of the appeal. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.