1988 PCRLJ 535

SYED AHMAD MUNIR Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL

Citation1988 PCRLJ 535

CourtLahore High Court

Case No.Criminal Revision No. 293 of 1987

Date1987-10-12

Judge(s)Muhammad Munir Khan

ResultPetition dismissed

The facts giving rise to this revision petition against acquittal are that Muhammad Iqbal lodged report against Syed Muhammad Nunir Urfi petitioner under section 452, 506/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali Faisalabad. After investigation, the challan was submitted. On the conclusion of the trial the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. Thereafter the petitioner filed complaint under sections 506 and 500, P.P.C. against Muhammad Iqbal respondent, After preliminary enquiry, the learned Magistrate summoned Muhammad Iqbal respondent under section 506, P.P.C. When the respondent appeared before the Court, the learned Magistrate framed a charge under section 506, P.P.C. The complainant produced his evidence. The learned Magistrate however acquitted the respondent on 30‑11‑1986, hence this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel has frankly and rightly conceded that since there was no evidence of the commission of crime punishable under section 506, P.P.C., therefore, no exception can be taken to the acquittal of the respondent of the charge under section 506, P.P.C. The learned counsel maintained that since the complaint was also under section 500, P.P.C. the learned Magistrate should not have only summoned the respondent under section 500, P.P.C. but should have also framed charge under that section.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that neither any revision was filed against the charge framed under section 506, P.P.C., not any application for the amendment of the same was moved before the trial Court. Furthermore no objection was raised before the learned Magistrate with regard to the error in the charge. That being the position, I am of the view that submissions, made by the learned counsel do not furnish sufficient ground for interference in the order of acquittal.

For what has been said above, the revision petition is dismissed.

M.Y.H./A‑235/L Petition dismissed.