Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3049 1970 SLD 3049 = 1970 PCRLJ 249
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 30 and 31 of 1969, decided on 7th July 1969.
Presented By: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Sajjad Ahmad, JJ
Petitioner in person. Nemo for
Respondents.

Ch. FEROZE DIN-Petitioner

VERSUS

DR. K. M. MUNIR AND ANOTHER--Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 476

(On appeal from the judgment and orders of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 3rd December 1968, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6060 of 1968 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6061 of 1968). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 476-Action under section not to be launched as a matter of course-Such action to be taken in public interest and not for satisfaction of private grudge or wreaking a private vengeance. Under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a prosecution is not to be launched as a matter of course for any and every offence alleged to have been committed in the course of judicial proceedings. A necessary requirement for such an action is that it must be taken in public interest and not allowed to be used as a handle in the hand of one party to wreak a private vengeance or satisfy a private grudge against the other party. Date of hearing : 7th July 1969. JUDGMENT SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This order will dispose of Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 30 and 31 of 1969, which are directed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, whereby the petitioner's application under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code for lodging complaint against the respondents for their having made use of certain orders of allotment during the proceedings in the Court, which were allegedly forged, has been dismissed. The petitioner and the respondents are rival contestants for transfer of an evacuee building situated in Gandhi Square, Lahore. The dispute was ultimately brought in the High Court under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution and in the result it was remanded back to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh consideration of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register