Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2015 Lahore 99 Present Syed Mansoor Ali Shah J MUHAMMAD RIAZ MALIK MEMBER NATIONAL ASSEMBLY - - Petitioner versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER LAHORE and 21 others - - Respondents WP No 27437 of 2014 decided on 23102014 Representation of the People Act 1976 (LXXXV of 1976) - - - - - - Ss 62 67 - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art 199 - - Constitutional Petition - - Summoning and examining of DRO - - Remedy against final order - - Validity - - Interim orders of Election Tribunal cannot be challenged before High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction under Art 199 of Constitution - - Instant petition is therefore not maintainable hence dismissed [P 101] A Ch Aamir Rehman Advocate for Petitioner Mr Anwaar Hussain Assistant Advocate General Punjab Mr Tipu Salman Makhdoom Advocate for Respondent No 2 Syed Tajamal Hussain Assistant Superintendent District Returning Officer LahoreJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2015 AJK 76 -----Azad Penal Code, Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 452 - Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Section 169 - Summoning of Accused: The application for summoning of discharged accused listed in Column No. 2 of the challan was considered premature. Validity: No reliable proof has been presented to establish the accused's involvement in the commission of the alleged offenses. It would be appropriate to consider summoning the accused only after recording statements from all eyewitnesses, including the investigating officer. As no evidence supporting the petitioner/complainant's version was provided, the application for summoning was deemed premature and could not be allowed [Page 78]. -----Background: The petitioner sought to summon certain accused who were previously discharged by the investigating officer and placed in Column 2 of the challan in a case involving charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, and 452 of the Azad Penal Code (APC). The Civil Judge/Magistrate initially dismissed the application for summoning these accused, and the petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition, which was granted. However, after another hearing, the Magistrate again dismissed the application on 15.10.2011, leading the petitioner to file the present revision petition. -----Issues: 1- Whether there was sufficient evidence to summon the accused respondents who had been discharged and listed in Column 2 of the challan. -----2- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for summoning these accused before all prosecution and eye-witness statements were recorded. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that summoning the accused at this stage was premature, as the statements of all eye-witnesses and the investigating officer had not been fully recorded. The court emphasized that reliable evidence of the accused's involvement was not yet available, and summoning them without complete evidence would be unjustified. Therefore, the court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Magistrate’s order. The court instructed the trial Magistrate to proceed with the case expeditiously. -----Citations/Precedents: [P. 78] A: Confirms that summoning of accused should only occur when there is reliable evidence indicating their involvement, and applications lacking such proof may be dismissed as premature.