Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 309 2021 SLD 309 2021 PLJ 25
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 163 of 2020, decided on 12.6.2020, Dates of hearing: 12.6.2020. (Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 28.01.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 49574-TA of 2019)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, FAISAL ARAB AND SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JJ.
Chaudhary Abdul Khalid Thind, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for State.

MUHAMMAD SULTAN

VS

MUHAMMAD RAZA AND OTHERS--RESPONDENTS

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 185(3)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 392

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 185(3)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 392--Leave to appeal--Criminal petition--There is no denial to this fact that death of son of petitioner was reported within local limits of Police Station Defence-B, Lahore, and in this regard, a case bearing FIR No. 311/2013 dated 30.06.2013 offence under Section 392, P.P.C. was also registered with said police station--Post-mortem examination of son of petitioner was conducted at Lahore--In this connection, all witnesses are also residents of Lahore--As per version of prosecution, it is mentioned in complaint that sons of petitioner were allegedly abducted from two distinct places on two different occasions i.e. on 26.06.2013 and 29.06.2013 respectively--However, they were kept in illegal confinement in Police Station Defence-B at Lahore--There is no denial to this fact from prosecution version that son of petitioner was allegedly done to death on following day by a brutal act of respondents--A constitutional petition was filed however order of same was not placed on record--Court have noticed with concern that despite of a serious allegation of extra-judicial killing against respondent, petitioner adopted recourse of law while filing complaint before trial Court with inordinate delay of more than three years--Bare perusal of language of aforesaid provision depicts that if there is any departure from general principle qua jurisdiction and venue of trial, two aspects are to be evaluated for proper determination such as: i.        Commission of an offence. ii.       Commission of an act and other consequences ensued. From careful perusal of language of aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that this provision has extended limits of venue while classifying principles to assume jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence for purpose of trial--We have observed that in instant case, controversy in between parties relating to venue of trial--prosecution itself is not certain about it because from perusal of complaint, allegation of abduction had taken place from two distinct places whereas jurisdiction and venue has been assailed by…
🔒
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