1991 PLP 1289 (MLD)
ZAHOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1289 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAHOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1289 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1289 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1289 (MLD) (ZAHOOR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Faiz-ur-Rehman for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 165 & Third Sched. Part 1
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.439 & 561-A
Illegal encroachment on Government land
Summary trial of petitioners
Section 165, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 postulates that matters of encroachment were not to be tried summarily, because such offences were mentioned in Part 1 of Third Schedule, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979; summary trial whereof was not permitted-- Summary trial was also illegal because petitioners having pleaded guilty, Court was obliged to ask them to show-cause as to why they should not be convicted-- Such procedure having not been adopted, petitioners' revisions were accepted, their conviction and sentences were set aside.
Judgment & Decree
Through this single order, I propose to dispose of four Criminal Revisions Nos. 554 of 1985 filed by Zahoor Ahmed, 558 of 1985 filed by Abdul Rehman, 555 of 1985 filed by Muhammad Saleem and 556 of 1985 filed by Muhammad Hanif. All the petitioners were, tried under section 161/162 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance by Corporation Magistrate, Gujranwala, on the charge of illegal encroachment on the Government land. The charge was framed. They were asked as to whether, they plead guilty? On which they stated:-- Gi haan jurajm se aitraf hai Zahoor Ahmed, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Hanif were sentenced to a fine of Rs.500, in default thereof one month S.I. each. Abdul Rehman was sentenced to a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof two months' S.I. The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on 11-2-1985, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that summary trial of the petitioners on the charge of encroachment was not permissible under law and that the petitioners were not given opportunity to show cause why they should not be convicted on their admission. No one has appeared for the State.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. 1 find that under section 165 of the Punjab Municipal Ordinance, the matters of encroachment were/are not to be tried summarily as it was one of those offences which are mentioned in Part-1 of III Schedule. Furthermore, after the accused/petitioners had pleaded guilty, the Court was obliged to ask them to show cause as to why they should not be convicted, but this has not been done. For what has been said above, these revisions are accepted. The conviction and sentences of the petitioners are set aside. If they had paid the fine, the same shall be refunded to them. AA./Z-197/L Revisions accepted.