1986 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL HAMID Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Aslam Mian, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Aslam Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL HAMID Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmad Saeed Kirmani for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑‑ Case against petitioner complete in all respects and fixed for final arguments and orders of Trial Court‑ Quashment of proceedings declined. Syed Zulfiqar Haider for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑‑ Case against petitioner complete in all respects and fixed for final arguments and orders of Trial Court‑ Quashment of proceedings declined. Ahmad Saeed Kirmani for Petitioner. Syed Zulfiqar Haider for the State. Date of hearing: 11th May, 1986. This petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. has been made for quashing the criminal proceedings in a case under section 379/411, P.P.C. against the petitioner and two others for having cut and removed a Kiker tree from the premises of the Sessions Court, Sargodha without any right, pending in the Court of Mr. Safdar Ali Malik, M.I.C. , Sargodha.
2. The record of the trial Court has been perused which shows that the case is complete in all respects meaning thereby as to the evidence of the prosecution, statement of the petitioner and the defence. It is further to be noted that the case in fact was fixed for arguments on 10‑2‑1982 when the proceedings were stayed by this Court in this petition. In order to show that the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court and no offence is disclosed the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the evidence for this Court to judge which function can in view of the stage of the proceedings of the case be best discharged by the trial Court as the trial Court is only to hear the arguments and deliver its order. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. The record is to be sent to the trial Court which is to conclude the case within a period of two months. S.G.D. Petition dismissed.