Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CCPC) Sections 412 and 439 of the Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975), the offenders were found guilty at the request of the offender by which they made water connection without the prior permission of the authorities. And he was punished for being a tenant of Rs. At that time it was charged with seizing the location and was used during that period, held, was a mitigating factor in the reduction of fines, which was reduced to Rs 500.

1986 P Cr. L J 2330

[Lahore]

Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J

MUHAMMAD ASLAM Petitioner

Versus

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and others Respondents

Criminal Revision No. 698 of 1985, decided on 18th February, 1986.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

‑‑‑Ss. 412 & 439‑‑Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975), S. 33‑‑Accused convicted on plea of guilty for having installed‑ water connection without prior sanction of authorities and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000‑‑Tenant being in possession of premises at the time alleged connection was taken and during period it was used, held, was a mitigating factor for reduction of fine‑‑Sentence reduced to Rs.500.

Ch. Nawab‑ud‑Din Mahmood for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 18th February, 1986.

JUDGMENT

The revision petition is directed against the order dated 9‑12‑1984 of Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26‑8‑1984 of Special Magistrate, L.D.A., Lahore whereof learned Magistrate had sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 for having installed water connection without prior sanction of the authorities.

2. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge keeping in view the provisions of section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The petition was not admitted on merits as it was not considered feasible after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. It was admitted only to consider the quantum of sentence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the fact of the premises being in possession 4of the tenant at the time, the alleged connection was taken, and during the period it was used, is a mitigating factor for reducing the fine. Learned counsel states that the petitioner has also challenged his liability to pay the water charge on that ground and a civil suit in this regard is pending.

Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I feel inclined to reduce the fine of Rs.2,000 to a sum of Rs. five hundered. The excess amount of fine, if paid, shall be returned to the petitioner.

H.A.K. Revision partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocate from Bolan lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.