2004 PLP 1828 (YLR)
MAUJ ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1828 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J |
| Parties | MAUJ ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1828 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1828 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1828 (YLR) (MAUJ ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Jamil Anwer Shah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 204‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34/109‑‑‑Summoning of accused placed in Column No. 2 of challan‑‑‑Court taking cognizance of offence on a police report, would take cognizance of whole case and not merely of a particular person charged in the report as an offender‑‑‑Case against accused petitioners had been gent to the Court and their names were placed in Column No.2 of challan‑Trial Court could summon said accused to face trial and there was no legal requirement that at the first instance evidence should be recorded to ascertain as to whether prima facie case was made out against them‑‑ Court while issuing process against accused petitioners, had committed no illegality‑‑‑Order passed by Trial Court, would call for no interference in revision. S. Akhtar Sher v. The State and another 1991 MLD 1977 and Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal and others 2002 SCMR 63 ref. Ghazanfar Ali for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. Akhtar Sher v. The State and another 1991 MLD 1977 and Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal and others 2002 SCMR 63 ref. Syed Jamil Anwer Shah for Petitioner. Ghazanfar Ali for the State. A case F.I.R. No.82 of 1998, dated 28‑4‑1998 under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C., on the complaint of Master Allah Wassaya had been registered against the three accused persons sons of the petitioner at Police Station Pacca Laaran on the 'allegation of murder of Ghamoon Khan nephew of the complainant. 2. After investigation of the case, challan has been sent to the Court and the petitioner Mauj Ali son of Jumma Khan and Mst. Siddiqan wife of Gaman had been summoned by the trial Court after taking cognizance of the case vide its order dated 24‑7‑1999. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners through the instant criminal revision contending that the Court was not competent to summon the petitioners to face the trial of the case without recording some evidence. He relies on the case of S. Akhtar Sher v. The State and another 1991 MLD 1977 Quetta. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The names of the petitioners were placed in Column No.2 of the challan and the trial Court having found material on the file of the case against the petitioners, summoned them to fact the trial. It is settled principle of law that when the Court taking cognizance of tae offence on a police report that takes the cognizance of the whole case and not merely of a particular person charged in the report as an offender. The case against the petitioner has been sent to the Court and their names were placed in Column No.2 of the challan. The trial Court can summon the accused placed in Column No.2 of the challan to face the trial and there is no legal bar whatsoever that at first instance evidence should be recorded to ascertain as to whether prima facie case is made out against them. A reference in this context can be made to the case of Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal and others 2002 SCMR 63. 4. Therefore, in following the dictum laid down by the apex Court, I am constrained to observe that the Court while issuing process against the petitioners committed no illegality and the order passed by the lower Court/Additional Sessions Judge calls for no interference which is unexceptionable. Resultantly, this revision petition having no force, is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑240/L Revision dismissed.