1986 P Cr (PLP)
GENERAL MANAGER, KUNDIAN NUCLEAR COMPLEX‑‑Appellant Versus IRFAN ASHIQ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | GENERAL MANAGER, KUNDIAN NUCLEAR COMPLEX‑‑Appellant Versus IRFAN ASHIQ‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (GENERAL MANAGER, KUNDIAN NUCLEAR COMPLEX‑‑Appellant Versus IRFAN ASHIQ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asadullah Siddiqui for Appellant.
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 417 (2)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908) , S. 12‑‑Time requisite for obtaining copy of order of Magistrate in accordance with provisions of S.12 of Limitation Act, held, would be excluded while computing period of limitation for filing special leave to appeal against acquittal. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑S. 417(2)‑‑Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952), S.3(3) read with Ss. 5(1)(a) & 5(1)(b)‑‑Complaint dismissed for want of evidence‑‑Case was adjourned for evidence of complainant on date when Magistrate was on leave‑‑No legal order for production of evidence passed‑‑Magistrate, held, could not close evidence of complainant on date for which case was not adjourned by himself.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑S. 417(2)‑‑Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952), S.3(3) read with Ss. 5(1)(a) & 5(1)(b)‑‑Complaint dismissed for want of evidence‑‑Case was adjourned for evidence of complainant on date when Magistrate was on leave‑‑No legal order for production of evidence passed‑‑Magistrate, held, could not close evidence of complainant on date for which case was not adjourned by himself. Asadullah Siddiqui for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1986. The facts leading up to this appeal against acquittal are that General Manager, Kundian Nuclear Complex, Kundian, District Mianwali filed a complaint under section 3(3) read with s.‑cnons 5(1) and 5(1)(b) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 against Irfan Ashiq, respondent No.
1. The complaint was dismissed on 10‑8‑1981 and the respondent was acquitted of the charge for want of evidence against him. The complainant filed application for Special Leave to Appeal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. which after having been allowed has been converted into present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused/respondent without legal justification, inasmuch as, he was present on 22‑7‑1981 when the case was adjourned to 10‑8‑1981 and that since the Magistrate was not present on 22‑7‑1981 and no valid order for the production of evidence on 10‑8‑1981 was passed, therefore, the Magistrate could not have closed the evidence of the prosecution and acquitted the accused on 10‑8‑1981. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. He, however, contended that the application for Special Leave to Appeal was barred by one day.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that after excluding time requisite for obtaining the copy of the order of the Magistrate, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Limitation Act, the ~ application for Special Leave to Appeal was within time. I further find that on 22‑7‑1981, the learned Magistrate was on leave and as such, there was no legal order requiring the prosecution to produce its evidence on 10‑8‑1981. That being the position, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate could not have closed the evidence and acquitted accused for want of evidence on 10‑8‑1981.
4. For what has been stated‑ above, the appeal is accepted. The order of acquittal is set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for retrial in accordance with law. H.A.K. Case remanded.