Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 1013 1975 SLD 1013 1975 PCRLJ 1448
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1972, 18th June, 1974
Z.A. CHANNA, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Shamsuddin

VS

The State And 2 others --Respondents

Law:

Section:

Keywords: Receipt, Good Faith, Notice, Money, Dispute, Parties, Evidence, Petitioner, Exception, Endorsement, Defence, Assault, Magistrate, Defamation, Classes, Malice, Panchayat, Chairman Result: Application dismissed JUDGMENT This criminal revision application calls in question the judgment of a learned Additional City Magistrate, Karachi, delivered on 25-9-1971, whereby he acquitted respondents 2 to 3 of an offence under section 500, P. P. C. The petitioner, Shamshuddin, as well as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 reside in Vilayatabad area No. 1 of Karachi city. On or about 20-4-1968 respondent Nazir Ahmed had made an application against the petitioner to the Chairman, Vilayatabad Union Committee No. 5, alleging that the petitioner, alongwith four other persons, had caught told of him and had given him blows and a beating. It was requested in the said application that action be taken against the petitioner herein and other persons named in the application under section 323/34, P. P. C. The Chairman of the Union Committee, on receipt of the above application, issued summonses to the parties, but further action on the application was dropped, as the parties informed the Chairman that they had compromised the matter and settled their dispute. The petitioner, however, took exception to some of the allegations and imputations made in the said application and accordingly he filed a complaint under section 500, P. P. C. Against respondents 2 and 3 in the Court of a learned A. C. M., Karachi. Respondent No. 3 was involved as he was a member of the Union Commit tee. Vilayatabad, and he had certified that the contents of the application made by respondent No. 2 were correct and it suggested that an enquiry be conducted. The learned Additional City Magistrate, who tried the case, examined the petitioner and three other witnesses in support of the petitioner's case against respondents 2 and 3, and also examined four witnesses, who were cited by the said respondents in their defence. On the of the evidence led before him, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the application filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner did not attract the application of section…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492