P L D 1957 (W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD DIN‑Convict‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1957 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN‑Convict‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1957 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 (W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD DIN‑Convict‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner.
- Ijaz Ali, O. S. D., for Advocate‑General, for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13 (1) (a) Third offence‑Made punishable up to 3 years' imprisonment by Punjab Act (1711 of 1951)‑Not triable summarily‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 260 (1) (a), 530 (g).
Judgment & Decree
RAHMAN, C. J.‑
The petitioner was tried under- section 13 (1) (a) of the Punjab Pure Food Act, 1929 (herein after referred to as the Act) and sentenced to 4 months' simple imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha. The allegations against the accused petitioner in this case clearly recited that this was his third offence against the provisions of section 13 (1) (a) of the Act as amended by Punjab Act VII of 1951. Section 13 of the Act was amended in the latter year and any offence subsequent to the second, committed by a person, was made punishable with imprisonment for a term which could not be less than three months but which might extend to three years beside 'fine. Such an offence could not have been tried summarily as was done by the trial Magistrate in the instant, case. Section 260 (1) (a) Criminal P. C. read with section 530 (g) of the Code would render the whole proceed ings void. I therefore allow the revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted bail by order of this Court dated 13th November 1956. He will be deemed to have been discharged from his bail bond. A. H. Petition allowed.