Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG = 1962 SLD 2599 = 1962 PLD 42
Baghdad ul Jadid
Case No. 22 of 1961, decided on 11th April 1962.
Presented By: Bashir Ahmad and Sajjad Ahmad, JJ
  S. Mahmood Khan for Petitioner.   Farzand All Khan for A.-G. for
Respondent.   Asghar Ali Bhatti for Complainant.

Mst. SHAKEELA-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Central Laws (Statues Reforms) Ordinance (XXI of 1960)

Section: Ss. 3 (2) ck 4 (1)

Central Laws (Statute Reform) Ordinance (XXI of 1960), Ss. 3 (2) ck 4 (1) read with S. 498, Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- Ordinance, by S. 4, effects "wholesale repeal" of Bahawalpur laws, in legislative field covered by "corresponding" laws enforced by Ordinance-"Corresponding"-Meaning-[Provision in Bahawalpur Penal Code that under S. 498, a wife could be proceeded against as an abetter of her own elopement, no longer in force.]   The effect of section 3, Central Laws (Statute Reform) Ordinance, 1960 is that enactments and Ordinances mentioned in Schedule II of the Ordinance with the amendments indicated in the fourth column thereof have been duly applied to the former Bahawalpur State. Section 4 of the Ordinance repeals the pre-existing law that were in force in those areas replacing them by the provisions of the Acts and Ordinances specified in the Second Schedule as if they were Central Laws re-enacted by the Ordinance.   [It was conceded that the Bahawalpur State was not an Acceding State saved by section 3 (2) (c) from operation of that section].   The Ordinance effects the wholesale repeal of such laws In Bahawalpur in the legislative field covered by the corresponding enactments and Ordinances enforced by the Ordinance.   Any law in force in the former Bahawalpur State prior to the Ordinance must now surrender place to the newly-enacted Act or Ordinance specified in the Second Schedule of the Ordinance if both are found to cover an analogous field of legislative activity.   While examining the validity of a previous law of Bahawalpur in relation to the laws enforced by the Ordinance all that has to be seen Is whether the former corresponds to the latter not in the sense of being identically the same or similar, but in the sense whether it occupies a field of legislation which is now occupied by the corresponding law extended and enforced by the Ordinance. Corresponding Is a word of wide import bearing several meanings, but in the context of section 4 of the Ordinance its sense is best conveyed by those stated inter alia in the Webster's Dictionary, viz. "to answer (to something else) in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register