Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 308 of V 1968, decided on 29th November 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court ‑of West Pakistan, Bahawalpur Circuit, Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid, dated the S 28th March 1968, in Criminal Reference No. 42 of 1966/BWP).
S. 4‑High Court while acquitting accused observing: "A baseless case against the accused was brought forward by the Thanedar in this case"‑Remark whether uncalled for and required expungement‑Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court.
Ch. Muhammad Husain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 29th November 1968.
This petition is barred by 548 days. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in question. He has stated that he came to know of the decision appealed against on the 26th September 196:x. He, thereafter, applied for copy of the judgment and after receipt of it filed the petition for leave to appeal. In view of the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay as indicated above we condone the delay in filing the petition for leave.
Leave is sought to appeal from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid, accepting a reference under section 438, Cr. P. C, made by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur.
Five persons, namely, Mst. Anwar, Mst. Sakina, Mst. Sharifan, Abdul Hamid and Wahid Bakhsh were challaned under section 4 of the West Pakistan Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance. They were convicted by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Ahmadpur East and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each or in default to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a month. Abdul Hamid alone filed a revision petition in which he challenged his conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove soliciting for which the accused persons were charged and convicted. He further came to the conclusion that the offence of soliciting can be committed only by a female and therefore the conviction of two ‑male persons, namely, Abdul Hamid and Wahid Bakhsh could not be justified. He therefore recommended that the convictions and sentences of the accused persons be set aside.
The learned Single Judge accepted the reference and ended up his order by observing "I am fully satisfied that a baseless case against the accused was brought forward by the Thanedar in this case. The revision petition is accepted in terms mentioned above". Abdul Hamid, it appears, has filed a civil suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution against the petitioner, who submitted challans in the criminal case and some others.
It is contended that the remark against the petitioner was passed by the learned Judge without examining the evidence on record and was therefore uncalled for. It is further sub mitted that the fabric of judgment would remain unaffected if the said remark is expunged from the judgment. The points raised merit consideration.
Leave is accordingly granted.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer