2005 PLP 1015 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1015 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Abdul Rashid, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1015 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1015 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Abdul Rashid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1015 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Justin Gill for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 196‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 295‑A‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Evidence on record had revealed that complaint was not lodged by order of any Authority from Federal Government or the Provincial Government, but was lodged on the report of a private person‑‑ Provisions of S. 196, Cr.P.C. had provided that a Court could take cognizance of offence like in the, present case upon complaint made by order of or under authority from Central Government or Provincial Government or some officer empowered in that behalf by either of two Governments‑‑‑Said mandatory provision of law having not been complied with, entire proceedings conducted in the case were without legal authority‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Ijaz Ahmad v. Muhammad Azam 2003 PCr. LJ Lah. 1458 and Bashir Ahmad v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ Lah. 902 ref. M. Asghar Ali Awan for the State. Ashfaq Kazim, Inspector S.H.O. with record.
Judgment & Decree
Ijaz Ahmad v. Muhammad Azam 2003 PCr. LJ Lah. 1458 and Bashir Ahmad v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ Lah. 902 ref. Justin Gill for Petitioner. M. Asghar Ali Awan for the State. Ashfaq Kazim, Inspector S.H.O. with record. Muhammad Ashraf and Asif Ali petitioners through this petition seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.344 dated 29‑8‑2004 under section 295‑A, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City A‑Division Kasur. According to prosecution allegation set up in the F.I.R. the petitioner were issuing pamphlets, which injured the religious feelings and sentiments of the Muslims and as well as contradicted the teachings of Islam. The case was registered on the report of one Dr. Abdul Razzaq who had seen the petitioner distributing the said pamphlets.
2. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the case has been registered in violation of section 196, Cr.P.C. which stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter VI or IX‑A of the Pakistan Penal Code (except section 127) or punishable under section 108‑A or section 153 or section 294‑A, or section 295‑A or section 505 of the same Code, unless upon complaints made by order of or under authority from, the Central Government or the Provincial Government concerned, or some officer empowered in this behalf by either of the two Governments, whereas in this case no such complaint had been made by any competent authority or the prosecution of the petitioner had not been sanctioned by the said authorities.
3. The police record reveals that while lodging this case no complaint had been made by order of any authority from the Federal Government or the Provincial Government and it was lodged on the report of a private person. It has been held in Ijaz Ahmad v. Muhammad Azam (2003 PCr.LJ 1458 Lahore) and Bashir Ahmad v. The State (2000, PCr.LJ 902 Lahore) that the provision of section 196, Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature and unless they are complied with the prosecution under section 295‑A, P.P.C. cannot be valid. As the F.I.R. in this case has been lodged, in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 196, Cr.P.C., therefore, the entire proceedings conducted up till now appears to be without legal authority and as such the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑935/L Bail granted