1988 P Cr (PLP)
IKRAMUDDIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | IKRAMUDDIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (IKRAMUDDIN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Shami for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156(1)(8)‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Accused in judicial lock‑up for over two months, his remand was obtained from a Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to try him for offence with which he was charged, or remand accused for more than fifteen days‑‑Accused never produced before Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑Bail granted. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, A.‑G., Punjab and Sh. Maqbool Ahmed II for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156(1)(8)‑‑Bail, grant of‑ Accused in judicial lock‑up for over two months, his remand was obtained from a Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to try him for offence with which he was charged, or remand accused for more than fifteen days‑‑Accused never produced before Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑Bail granted. Nazir Ahmad Shami for Petitioner. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, A.‑G., Punjab and Sh. Maqbool Ahmed II for the State. The petitioner has been produced from judicial custody. He was reported against vide F.I.R. No. 529, dated 5‑7‑1987, Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad for offences under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act on the allegations that he was caught measuring cloth in the open which was of foreign origin.
2. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner's remand had been obtained from a Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to try the petitioner for the offences with which he stands charged for a period of over two months. He was never produced before a Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Advocate‑General submits that remand by a learned Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to try the accused could not exceed fifteen days. It would thus emerge clear that thereafter it is for the trial Court to take cognizance of the matter who could either remand the offender to judicial custody or adjourn the case. The present device of a Magistrate having no jurisdiction in the matter assuming the role of trial Court without adverting to the provision of law and granting mechanical remands to devoid of legal sanctity. His custody is, therefore, not legal.
3. Learned standing counsel obliquely pressed into service section 161 of the Customs Act if that could be of some help. Unfortunately for the learned counsel, the Magistrate does not appear to be conscious of the provisions of section 161 even and as is patent from the reading of his orders. He has been acting mechanically. The petitioner is, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.40,000 (forty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Customs before whom the accused shall appear on 13th October, 1987 on which date the learned counsel states that he will be attending to his work at Lahore. M.Y.H./I‑41/L Bail granted.