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. 698 of 1985, decided on 18th February, 1986.
‑‑‑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.
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.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer