Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 3119 = 1980 SLD 3119 = 1980 PCRLJ 851
Baghdad ul Jadid
Criminal Revision No. 99 of 1973/BWP, decided on 30th November, 1973.
Presented By: Javid Iqba1, J
M. M. Bhatti for Petitioner A. R. Tayyab for
Respondent., M. M. Pirzada for the State.

MAQBOOL AHMED ESC.-Petitioners

VERSUS

ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONEQ BAHAWALPUR--Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: 144 (1), 11, 439

Law: General Clauses Act (X of 1897)

Section: 17(1)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 144 (1) & 11 and General Clauses Act (X 1897) S. 17 (1) Addl. Deputy Commissioner as Chief Executive of District and Magistrate 1st Class as well, on transfer of District Magistrate pass ing order under S. 144 (1)Contention that D. M., S. D. M. or any other Magistrate (not being a Magistrate IIlrd Class) especially empowered by the Provincial Government or District:'; Magistrate could pass order under S. 144 (1)Addl. Deputy Commissioner, held, competent to pass order in circumstances of case. Tariq Mahmood v. The State and others P L D 1968 Lab. 939 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 144 (1), West Pakistan Cotton Control Ordinance (XX of 1966), Ss. 22 & 23 read with West Pakistan Cotton Control Rules, 1966, r. 22 and Memo: No. Cotton/13543 dated 8th November, 1973 Contention that order passed under S. 144, prohibiting export of cotton from one district to another being mala fide and for bene fiting two or three ginning factory owners, held, not correctPhutti being removed from inferior quality areas to superior quality areas resulting in mixture of different varieties of phutti, damaging quality of Pakistani yarn and spoiling Pakistan's image in foreign markets Order under S. 144, held, proper in circumstances of case. Abdul Sattar Fazal Din v. The State 1971 P Cr. L J 298 ; Viru Kan, and another v. Dewandas Jhamandas A I R 1940 Sind 158 and Ram Autar Sahr v. Kishnupt Ram 4 I C 577 ref. (c) West Pakistan Cotton Control Rules, 1966 R. 22 read with Criminal Procedure Code (4 of 1898), S. 144Contention that transportation of cotton can be prohibited under r. 22 by Agricultural Department and occasion to pass order under S. 144, not existing, held, not correct  Though Department could act under S. 22 yet cooperation and assistance of executive necessaryCotton season commencedPassing order under S. 144, held further, unquestionable in circumstances of the case. Muhammad Afzal Khan Bargash v. The State anal others P I. D 1969 Pesh. 238 ; Rani Bilkis Banoo alias Bilkis Choudhary and another Syed Nurul Alam 1968 P Cr. L J 619 and Nazar Hussain alias Ranjhu . District Magistrate, Sahiwal and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register