Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 98

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860, Ss. 20 & 209-Writ-Proceedings in rehabi litation matters-Civil proceedings in nature-Relief claimed: Orders of Settlement Authorities be quashed and possession restored to petitioner-Contention that jurisdiction under Art. 98 in nature of supervising exercise of public power and no such claim having been made case not covered by S. 209, P. P. C. held, ill founded in circumstances. The Queen v. Begum Mahtoon (1869) 12 S W R 37 (Cr.) and Ahmad Khan v. Chief Justice and The Judges of the High Court, West Pakistan P L D 1968 S C 171 contra. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 476-Courts to be over-cautious that prosecution is undertaken in interest of justice and not to satisfy private grudge of a litigant-Court to see that prima facie case made out upon existing evidence before enquiring whether alleged offence has or has not been committed-Court should not however decide guilt or innocence of the party proceeded against--Court not bound to hold preliminary enquiry -Nature, method and extent of enquiry-Entirely in discretion of Court. Gopaldas Khetriya v. Jnanedra Nath Dawn and others A I R 1938 Cal. 677; Lala Nand Lal v. Emperor A I R 1937 Lab. 867; U. Po Thein v. Buta Khan A I R 1936 Rang. 473; Queen v. Baijoo Lal and others I L R 1 Cal. 450; Abdus Samad v. Keshab Lal Gope P L D 1965 Dacca 46; M. Liaqat Hussain v. Vinay Prakash and another A I R 1946 All. 156 and Ningappa v. Emperor A I R 1941 Bom 408 ref. Dates of hearing: 23rd, 25th April and 6th May 1969. JUDGMENT A. R. SHEIKH, J.-While disposing of Writ Petition No. 379-R of 1967 filed by Mian Fazal Elahi (hereinafter called the respondent) against the Settlement Department and others in respect of premises 26-Empress Road, Lahore, the Court found that the claim of the petitioner that he entered the property in question in July 1958 was completely dishonest and untruthful and that he had no locus stand! whatsoever to ask for the transfer of the property on that basis. It was further observed that it was said that counsel had been misled by the respondent to present a false claim in this Court. We accordingly directed…