1996 PLP 626 (MLD)
JAVAID IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 626 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | JAVAID IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 626 (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 1996 PLP 626 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 626 (MLD) (JAVAID IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑S.176(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Fresh post‑mortem examination of deceased‑‑ Accused had moved an application for fresh post‑mortem examination of the deceased which was supported by the Deputy District Attorney‑‑‑District Magistrate, however, dismissed the said application without applying his judicial mind to the facts of the case and his order could be treated as non‑existent in law‑‑‑Said order was consequently declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence with the direction to District Magistrate to decide the aforesaid application of accused afresh after hearing the parties.
Judgment & Decree
THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents Writ Petition No.7617 of 1994, decided on 6th July, 1994. ‑S.176(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Fresh post‑mortem examination of deceased‑‑ Accused had moved an application for fresh post‑mortem examination of the deceased which was supported by the Deputy District Attorney‑‑‑District Magistrate, however, dismissed the said application without applying his judicial mind to the facts of the case and his order could be treated as non‑existent in law‑‑‑Said order was consequently declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence with the direction to District Magistrate to decide the aforesaid application of accused afresh after hearing the parties. A case under sections 302/148/149 and 337‑A, P.P.C. was registered against the accused with Police Station Chunian, District Kasur vide F.I.R. No.19/94, dated 6‑4‑1994. An application in writing was given .by the accused for conducting fresh post‑mortem examination upon the dead body of Inayat Ullah. Learned Deputy District Attorney, Kasur considered the request favourably and gave his opinion saying that it would advance the cause of justice, in case, disinternment of the dead body is ordered. However, the case of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Magistrate, Kasur vide his order, dated 13‑6‑1994. Sardar Shaukat Ali Khan, learned counsel argues that no speaking order was passed by the learned District Magistrate Order demonstrates that the learned District Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case. This order shall, therefore, be treated as non‑existent in law. The contentions of the learned counsel for the parties should have been considered by the learned District Magistrate to meet the ends of justice. Learned Law Officer in such a situation, has no objection if a direction is issued to the learned District Magistrate to pass a fresh speaking order. This being so, the impugned order is set aside by declaring it without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. In other words, the application of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending decision before the learned District Magistrate. It shall be decided after hearing the parties. With this observation, this petition indisposed of. N.H.Q./J‑100/L Petition disposed of.