1988 P Cr (PLP)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHOAITY‑‑Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHOAITY‑‑Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions 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: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHOAITY‑‑Petitioner Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Islam Ali Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Mian M. Pervaiz Akhtar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 154‑‑Registration of case‑‑Constitution of Pakistan(1973), Art. 199‑‑Allegation of theft of electricity‑‑Detection bill‑‑Report of Electric Inspector who initiated inquiry absolving accused Detection bill concerning a period prior to period for which report for theft after tampering with seal of meter, was required to be registered Bona fides of petitioner not beyond doubt‑‑Interference declined by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
In this constitutional petition, the petitioner had prayed for a direction for registration of case regarding alleged theft of energy by respondent No. 4 after tampering with the seal of the meter installed in his premises. A report was called for. The respondent No. 3 also appeared at limine stage through his counsel who pointed out that a departmental enquiry has been ordered to be made and Electric Inspector had initiated the enquiry. The case was adjourned to wait for his report, a photo copy of which has been placed on record today by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. In the report the said officer has given clear finding that claim of Wapda in respect of detection bill is unjustified and not supported with circumstantial and oral evidence and respondent No. 3 was held to be not liable to pay the amount of the said bill which was Rs.6,817.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner still insisted on even after this finding of the officer of the petitioner itself that so far as criminal liability is concerned that is independent and this report has only absolved the respondent No. 3 from civil liability and that this detention bill was for a period prior to the period for which report for theft after tampering with the seal of the meter is required to be registered. Be that as it may, after going through the report of Electric Inspector placed on the record. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion under Article 199 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. The bona fides of the petitioner in this respect are not beyond doubt. The petitioner if it is so advised, may pursue its other legal remedies such like filing a complaint before the competent Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. M.Y.H./W‑20/L Petition dismissed.