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 Miscellaneous Application No. 241/Q of 1986, decided on 11th March, 1987.
‑‑‑Ss. 561‑A & 249‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Application under S. 249‑A, Cr.P.C. dismissed by Trial Court after closing of evidence by prosecution‑‑Accused apprehending determination of case on merits to be foregone conclusion Jurisdiction under S. 561‑A, Cr.P.C., held, to be exercised rarely in exceptional cases‑ Exercise of jurisdiction refrained‑‑Case directed to be transferred to some other Court of competent jurisdiction in order to obviate apprehension of accused.
Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ashraf Khan for the State.
Naveed Shaharyar for the Complainant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The exercise of jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. is to be exercised rarely and that too in exceptional cases. In course of the hearing of the arguments it was brought to my notice that the petitioner had moved an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. which was dismissed after the prosecution had closed its evidence. Mr. Tahir Kheli, counsel for the petitioner thus, apprehended that the determination of this case on merits is a foregone conclusion. The record establishes that the application under section 249‑ A, Cr.P.C. moved on 8‑4‑1987 i.e. long before the prosecution adduced its evidence.
2. Considering the case from all angles I refrain to interfere in the. exercise of jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. but to obviate all the apprehensions in the mind of the petitioner, I would direct the District Magistrate, Lahore to entrust this case to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court to be entrusted with this case shall proceed with the trial expeditiously. The prosecution has closed its evidence and the defence evidence is yet to be examined. Mr. Naveed Shaharyar, Advocate, complains about the conduct of the petitioner who is absenting himself from the Court. In this view of the matter the Court who shall be entrusted with the case shall decide the case within a period of three months after the transfer of the case.
With these observations, this application is dismissed.
S.A./M‑106/L Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer