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 Revision No. 1176 of 1970, decided on 7th April, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 406 & 417‑‑Charge‑ Complainant filing private complaint against accused under S. 420/406‑ Trial Court framing charge against accused under S. 417, P.P.C.‑ Revision filed by accused against said order of Trial Court dismissed by revisional Court‑‑Very nature of allegations levelled in complaint showing that dispute was of civil nature‑‑Order of Trial Court framing charge under S. 417, P.P.C. against accused, held, was illegal‑‑Orders of both Courts below set aside in circumstances.
S.A. Nasir for Petitioner.
Abdul Rehman for A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th April, 1986.
This is a revision petition filed by Hafiz Ghulam Noor and Zia‑ur‑Rashid, petitioners, against the order of an Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore, dated 28‑10‑1970, dismissing their revision petition. Earlier, an Additional District Magistrate of Lahore, by his order, dated 10‑3‑1969, had framed a charge under section 417, P.P.C. against the petitioners.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8‑3‑1968. Ahmad Islam, complainant (present respondent No. 2) filed a private complaint against Hafiz Ghulam Noor and Zia‑ur‑Rashid, accused (the present petitioners) under section 420/406, P.P.C. alleging that the two accused persons, who were claim‑holders against agricultural land abandoned by them in India, had approached him for help in obtaining allotment of their claim in lieu of which they promised to give him 1/3rd of the land allotted. It was alleged that the two accused executed a written agreement on 15‑11‑1965 in this respect. The complainant also mentioned that the two accused obtained a loan of Re.2,000 from him a5 they were in dir e need of money. It is stated that the complainant got allotment of land in favour of the two accused in Mauza Sadhoki, 7ehsil and District Lahore, but the accused backed out from their promise to give hits 1/3rd share of the land allotted. It is finally mentioned in the complaint that an oral compromise was also effected between the parties in January. 1968, by which the two accused promised to pay 85,4,500 to the complainant on 1‑3‑1968. which they had failed to pay.
3. Mr. S.A. Nasir, Advocate, appears for the petitioners, and Ch. Abdul Rashid, Advocate, appears for the State. Registered A.D. post card was issued to respondent No. 2 for today's date of heating, but he has not turned up. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, the record has been perused. It is, obvious from the very nature of allegations that are recorded in the private complaint that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. The order of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Lahore, dated 10‑3‑1969, framing the charge under section 417, P.P.C. against the petitioners is, therefore, illegal.
3. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Lahore, dated 10‑3‑1969 framing the charge against the petitioners and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, dated 28‑10‑1970. dismissing the petitioners' revision petition are both set aside.
H.A.K. Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer