Pakistan Case Law← Search
K.L.R. 2001 Civil Cases 345

THE STATE And 2 Other vs Ch. MAQSOOD ALAM

CitationK.L.R. 2001 Civil Cases 345
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Review Application No. 38 of 1999 and Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1998/BWP
Date2001-01-11
Judge(s)Raja Muhammad Sabir, Malik Muhammad Qayyum
ResultN/A

ORDER

MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- This is an application seeking review of the order/judgement passed by this Court on 28.1.1999 whereby Constitutional petition filed by the respondent was accepted on the basis of statement made by the learned Law Officer that the Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case.

2. A case under Section 21 (2-A) of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971, was registered against the respondent which was being tried by an Executive Magistrate. The maximum punishment which can be awarded to an offender under the aforesaid law is three years as provided by Section 21 (2-A) of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance. The Constitutional Petition (Writ Petition No. 6390/1998/BWP) seeking quashment of the. Case was filed by the respondent.

When the ease came up before the learned Single Judge before him it was stated by the Learned Assistant Advocate-General that in view of the clear provisions of Law Reforms Ordinance he has no ubjection to the acceptance of the writ petition under Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as a result of which the petition stands allowed and the Executive .Magistrate was directed to send, the record of the case of the Judicial Magistrate.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have pointed out that, the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 was itself amended by Section 3(4) Of the Legal Reforms Act, 1997 (XXIII of 1997) in the following terms:- Provided that the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years with or without any other punishment, shall be tried by, the Executive Magistrate."

3-A. No one has appeared for the respondent despite notices He is, therefore, proceeded against ex-parte.

4. It is unfortunate that this amendment was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge who was misled by the learned Assistant Advocate-General by making a statement which is clearly contradictory to the law cited above.

5. In view of what has been stated above we allow this petition and set aside the order dated 28.1.1999, passed by the learned Single Judge.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search