Tufail Khan
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Tufail Khan as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,432
- Pages: 11
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
1.
Tufail Khan
Ss/o Sikandar Khan, caste Rajput, R/o
2.
Zafar Hussain
Chak No. 72/W-B, Tehsil & District Vehari. Petitioners VERSUS
The State.
…...Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION: - U/s 439 Cr.P.C. read with Sec-435 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 10.3.2001 passed by Syed Iqtidarul-Hassan Bukhari the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, by which the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 70,000/- each, as a penalty U/s 514 Cr.P.C. and attachment of standing crops till the realization of penalty. CLAIM IN REVISION: To set aside the impugned order and release the standing crops of the petitioners.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the case F.I.R. No. 353/98 dated 29.8.98 was registered U/s 302/324/148/149 P.P.C. at Police Station City, Vehari, against
Muhammad Irshad alias Billa and others. This Muhammad Irhsad alias Billa was admitted to post-arrest bail by the court of Syed Iqtidar-ul-Hassan Bukhari vide order dated 31.3.2000. This order was subject to furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 100,000/each. The petitioners stood sureties for the said accused in the like amount. Copy of order is attached as Annex “A”. 3. That the complainant of the above-mentioned case filed a petition for cancellation of bail for accused Muhammad Irshad alias Billa on 1.5.2000. During the proceedings of this application the accused Muhammad Irshad alias Billa was summoned by the learned lower court, but he could not appear in the court. Subsequently, notices were issued to the petitioners for the production of accused Muhammad Irshad alias Billa. The accused Muhammad Irshad alias Billa could not be produced in the court, by the police or petitioners/sureties and the learned lower court was pleased to award the penalty of Rs. 70,000/- to each of the petitioners. Certified copy of application for cancellation of bail and impugned order are appended as Annexes “B & C”. 4. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside interalia on the following: GROUNDS a)
That the impugned order is against the natural justice and law of equity.
b)
That the impugned order is against the facts of the case and norms of justice.
c)
That the impugned order is passed without application of judicial discretion.
d)
That the petitioners became sureties just on the humanitarian basis and not for any monetary benefit.
e)
That the production of the accused was beyond the control of the petitioners, because he was not available in the locality.
f)
That the provisions of law were not agitated properly by the court for the production of accused and the learned lower court remains putting pressure upon the petitioners for the production of accused persons.
g)
That the learned lower court during the proceedings for the cancellation of bail attached the standing crops of the petitioners and committed gross illegality. No such provision is available U/s 514 Cr.P.C. and the learned trial court acted beyond the jurisdiction. Copies of warrant of attachment and proceeding of Revenue Department are Annexes “D & E”.
h)
That the learned lower court acted arbitrarily and exercised the jurisdiction beyond the limitations under the law.
i)
That the petitioners are poor persons and small landowners, and the penalty is void and harsh one.
j)
That the impugned order caused a great miscarriage of justice to the petitioners.
PRAYER: It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned order passed U/s 514 Cr.P.C. dated 10.3.2001 may please be set aside declaring the same as illegal, unlawful, ultra vires and unwarranted under the law.
Any other order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioners, Dated: ___________
Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first Revision Petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
AFFIDAVIT of: Tufail Khan S/o Sikandar Khan, caste Rajput, R/o Chak No. 72/W-B, Tehsil & District Vehari.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of April 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001 Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
Application U/s 561-A Cr.P.C. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the main Revision Petition may please be treated as part and parcel of this application. 2. That during the proceedings under section 514 Cr.P.C. the standing crops of the petitioners were attached. No such provision U/s 514 Cr.P.C. or powers are available to the learned trial court. 3. That the learned trial court acted arbitrarily and against the law. 4. That the production of the accused was beyond the control of the applicant, and there was no fault on the part of the applicants/petitioners. 5. That the standing crops are the only source of applicants to maintain their families. It is, therefore, prayed that operation of the order of the attachment of the standing crops may please be suspended till the final decision of this petition in hand. Any other order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Humble Applicants Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
Application U/s 561-A Cr.P.C.
AFFIDAVIT of: Tufail Khan S/o Sikandar Khan, caste Rajput, R/o Chak No. 72/W-B, Tehsil & District Vehari.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of April 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEXURE. ========================================
Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copy of Annexure “A” is not available. However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been annexed with the petition, which is true copy of the original document. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of the document. APPLICANT Dated: __________
Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
DISPENSATION APPLICATION.
AFFIDAVIT of: Tufail Khan S/o Sikandar Khan, caste Rajput, R/o Chak No. 72/W-B, Tehsil & District Vehari.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of April 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS
ANNEXES PAGES
1
Urgent Form
2
Revision Petition
3
Affidavit
4
Copy of order dated 31.3.2000.
A
5
B
6
Copy of application for cancellation of bail. Copy of impugned order.
7
Copy of Warrant of attachment.
D
8
Copy of proceedings.
E
9
Dispensation Application.
10
Affidavit.
11
Application U/s 561-A C.P.C.
12
Affidavit.
13
Vakalatnama
C
PETITIONERS Dated: ____________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
1.
Tufail Khan
Ss/o Sikandar Khan, caste Rajput, R/o
2.
Zafar Hussain
Chak No. 72/W-B, Tehsil & District Vehari. Petitioners VERSUS
The State.
…...Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION: - U/s 439 Cr.P.C. read with Sec-435 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 10.3.2001 passed by Syed Iqtidarul-Hassan Bukhari the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, by which the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 70,000/- each, as a penalty U/s 514 Cr.P.C. and attachment of standing crops till the realization of penalty. CLAIM IN REVISION: To set aside the impugned order and release the standing crops of the petitioners.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the case F.I.R. No. 353/98 dated 29.8.98 was registered U/s 302/324/148/149 P.P.C. at Police Station City, Vehari, against
Muhammad Irshad alias Billa and others. This Muhammad Irhsad alias Billa was admitted to post-arrest bail by the court of Syed Iqtidar-ul-Hassan Bukhari vide order dated 31.3.2000. This order was subject to furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 100,000/each. The petitioners stood sureties for the said accused in the like amount. Copy of order is attached as Annex “A”. 3. That the complainant of the above-mentioned case filed a petition for cancellation of bail for accused Muhammad Irshad alias Billa on 1.5.2000. During the proceedings of this application the accused Muhammad Irshad alias Billa was summoned by the learned lower court, but he could not appear in the court. Subsequently, notices were issued to the petitioners for the production of accused Muhammad Irshad alias Billa. The accused Muhammad Irshad alias Billa could not be produced in the court, by the police or petitioners/sureties and the learned lower court was pleased to award the penalty of Rs. 70,000/- to each of the petitioners. Certified copy of application for cancellation of bail and impugned order are appended as Annexes “B & C”. 4. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside interalia on the following: GROUNDS a)
That the impugned order is against the natural justice and law of equity.
b)
That the impugned order is against the facts of the case and norms of justice.
c)
That the impugned order is passed without application of judicial discretion.
d)
That the petitioners became sureties just on the humanitarian basis and not for any monetary benefit.
e)
That the production of the accused was beyond the control of the petitioners, because he was not available in the locality.
f)
That the provisions of law were not agitated properly by the court for the production of accused and the learned lower court remains putting pressure upon the petitioners for the production of accused persons.
g)
That the learned lower court during the proceedings for the cancellation of bail attached the standing crops of the petitioners and committed gross illegality. No such provision is available U/s 514 Cr.P.C. and the learned trial court acted beyond the jurisdiction. Copies of warrant of attachment and proceeding of Revenue Department are Annexes “D & E”.
h)
That the learned lower court acted arbitrarily and exercised the jurisdiction beyond the limitations under the law.
i)
That the petitioners are poor persons and small landowners, and the penalty is void and harsh one.
j)
That the impugned order caused a great miscarriage of justice to the petitioners.
PRAYER: It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned order passed U/s 514 Cr.P.C. dated 10.3.2001 may please be set aside declaring the same as illegal, unlawful, ultra vires and unwarranted under the law.
Any other order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioners, Dated: ___________
Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first Revision Petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
AFFIDAVIT of: Tufail Khan S/o Sikandar Khan, caste Rajput, R/o Chak No. 72/W-B, Tehsil & District Vehari.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of April 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001 Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
Application U/s 561-A Cr.P.C. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the main Revision Petition may please be treated as part and parcel of this application. 2. That during the proceedings under section 514 Cr.P.C. the standing crops of the petitioners were attached. No such provision U/s 514 Cr.P.C. or powers are available to the learned trial court. 3. That the learned trial court acted arbitrarily and against the law. 4. That the production of the accused was beyond the control of the applicant, and there was no fault on the part of the applicants/petitioners. 5. That the standing crops are the only source of applicants to maintain their families. It is, therefore, prayed that operation of the order of the attachment of the standing crops may please be suspended till the final decision of this petition in hand. Any other order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Humble Applicants Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
Application U/s 561-A Cr.P.C.
AFFIDAVIT of: Tufail Khan S/o Sikandar Khan, caste Rajput, R/o Chak No. 72/W-B, Tehsil & District Vehari.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT
Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of April 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEXURE. ========================================
Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copy of Annexure “A” is not available. However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been annexed with the petition, which is true copy of the original document. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of the document. APPLICANT Dated: __________
Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
DISPENSATION APPLICATION.
AFFIDAVIT of: Tufail Khan S/o Sikandar Khan, caste Rajput, R/o Chak No. 72/W-B, Tehsil & District Vehari.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of April 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
Crl. Rev. No._____________/2001
Tufail Khan etc.
Vs.
The State
INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS
ANNEXES PAGES
1
Urgent Form
2
Revision Petition
3
Affidavit
4
Copy of order dated 31.3.2000.
A
5
B
6
Copy of application for cancellation of bail. Copy of impugned order.
7
Copy of Warrant of attachment.
D
8
Copy of proceedings.
E
9
Dispensation Application.
10
Affidavit.
11
Application U/s 561-A C.P.C.
12
Affidavit.
13
Vakalatnama
C
PETITIONERS Dated: ____________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
Related Documents
Tufail Khan
November 2019 37
Tufail Ahmed
June 2020 16
Ibnu Tufail
October 2019 38
Ibnu Tufail
October 2019 34
Ibnu Tufail
October 2019 38