1986 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. SALEEM SHAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. SALEEM SHAD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ 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) (GHULAM RASUL‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. SALEEM SHAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Talib H. Rizvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑--‑S. 500/506‑‑Criminal intimidation‑‑Accused allegedly having abused complainant and threatened to kill him‑‑Hurling of abuses, having been found punishable under S. 504, P.P.C. and not under 5.500, P.P.C, similarly threats simpliciter found, not amounting the criminal intimidation‑‑Statement of complainant, even if accepted at its face value, held, would not make out a case punishable under 5.500/506, P P.C.‑‑ Order of acquittal upheld.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑--‑S. 500/506‑‑Criminal intimidation‑‑Accused allegedly having abused complainant and threatened to kill him‑‑Hurling of abuses, having been found punishable under S. 504, P.P.C. and not under 5.500, P.P.C, similarly threats simpliciter found, not amounting the criminal intimidation‑‑Statement of complainant, even if accepted at its face value, held, would not make out a case punishable under 5.500/506, P P.C.‑‑ Order of acquittal upheld. Talib H. Rizvi for Petitioner. This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Magistrate Section 30 Bhakkar whereby he, on 11‑10‑1982 acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 500/506, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had successfully proved the charges against the respondent but the learned trial Court acquitted him without legal justification.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I find that the statement made by Ghulam Rasul in the Court accepted at its face value, no case punishable under section 500/506, P.P.C. is made out inasmuch as he stated that the accused had abused him and had threatened that he will kill him. The hurling of abuses is punishable under section 504 and not under section 500, P.P.C. As for section 506, P.P.C. a threat simpliciter does not amount to criminal intimidation as defined in section 503, P.P.C. It is very much necessary that the threats should be to cause alarm or to cause the complainant to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that of a threat simpliciter and the other ingredients have neither been alleged nor proved. The learned Magistrate has applied his conscious mind to the evidence and has given sound reasons in support of his judgment. The learned counsel has failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the judgment of the trial Court. For what has been stated above, there is no justification to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The petition is dismissed in limine. S.A. Petition dismissed.