Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision No.278 of 1975, decided on 22nd July, 1987.
---S.144--Preventive action--Order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate under S.144, Cr.P.C. operative only for a period of two months and nothing on record existed to show that period was extended any further after expiry of impugned order--Petition, held, had become infructuous, in circumstances.
Nemo for Petitioners.
Ch.Abdul Aziz for A.-G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 22nd July, 1987.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gujranwala, issued an order section 144 Cr.P.C. on 21-10-1974 prohibiting the construction of any kind on the land comprising Khasra Nos.1506, 1507, 1513 and 1515 situate in the vicinity of Khalsa Educational Boarding House, Garjakh, Gujranwala, as it was likely "to cause disturbance of public peace, rioting, affray, annoyance or obstruction to the inhabitants of the locality and the students residing in the hostel." It was stated in the order that it shall take effect forthwith and "shall remain in force for a period of two months'. Petitioners approached the District Magistrate under section 144(4) Cr.P. C. for rescinding the order of S.D. M . District Magistrate by order dated 4-11-1974 declined to rescind the 'order of S.D. M. and rejected the petitioners' application. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners challenged the orders of S.D.M. and the District Magistrate in revision which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 23-12-1974 holding that "no illegality has been committed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in issuing the-impugned order which calls for no interference." Hence the present revision petition.
2. No one appears for the petitioners. They were represented by Mian Muhammad Rafique, Advocate, Gujranwala. A note on this file shows that registered A.D. notice was issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 11-7-1987 for today's hearing. He has not turned up nor is anyone else present on behalf of the petitioners.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the impugned orders. Admitted position is that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was operative only for a period of .two months which period is not shown to have been extended any further. It appears that the petitioners were left with no grievance after the expiry of the impugned order and it is probably for this reason that they have not turned up today. In the circumstances, this revision petition having become infructuous is disposed of accordingly.
S.G.D./M-323/L
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer