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 Appeal No. 25 of 1975, decided on 4th March 1976.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 21st of February 1975, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 596‑Q of 1974).
---Ss. 406/109 & 420/ 109‑Cheating‑Quashment of proceedings‑Firm belonging to accused appellant J' alone and not jointly owned by all accused‑Money complained of given and received by accused Y alone and receipts executed by such accused alone‑Case against accused appellants other than accused appellant Y quashed in circum stances‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A.
Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on- Record for Respondent No. 1.
Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Date of hearing : 3rd March 1976.
This appeal by special leave of this Court is from on order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to quash the proceeding in a case registered against the appellants under sec tions 406 and 420 read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code pending before a First Class Magistrate, Chunian, District Lahore.
The learned counsel has, however, contended that the firm belonged to appellant Muhammad Younus alone as will appear from the complaint, and the money having been given and received by him only, the complaint against the accused other than Muhammad Younus does not lie. On inquiry, Mr. M. Bilal, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has stated that the receipt was executed by Muhammad Younus alone. Mr. Bilal has also failed to satisfy us that the firm in question is a joint one. In these circumstances we think that the case against appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Badar Younus, Jamal Younus and Pervaiz should be quashed.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent that the case will proceed in the Court of the Magistrate, Chunian, against appellant Muhammad Younus only and that the case against the other three accused appellants shall stand quashed.
We direct that the case be tried out expeditiously.
Appeal partly allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer