Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHABIR KHAN VS Respondent: OFFICER INCHARGE, F.I.U. OPS, GOJRA FORT and others
Court Name: High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Judge(s): Muhammad Riaz Akhtar Chaudhry Title:MUHAMMAD SHABIR KHAN vs OFFICER INCHARGE, F.I.U. OPS, GOJRA FORT and
others Case No.: Writ Petition No,241 of 2004 Date of Judgment:2005-05-10 Reported As: PLD 2005 Azad J&K 14 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER This is a petition under section 491, Cr.P.C., wherein it was contended by the petitioner that Arshad Mehmood brother of the present petitioner was in the illegal confinement of non-petitioners. Upon which, process was issued by the Division Bench consisting of my learned brothers Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Nawaz Khan and Mr. Justice Ghulam Mustafa Mughal. Now, they have referred this case to me for reconstitution of larger Bench. Today, Lieutenant Colonel Iqbal Hashmi produced a commitment warrant before the Court and submitted that the said Arshad Mehmood was tried under the Pakistan Army Act and a sentence of one year imprisonment has been awarded to him, therefore, this petition may be dismissed. 2. After the perusal of commitment warrant, there is no need for reconstitution of any larger Bench, therefore, this case shall be heard by myself. 3. I have perused the commitment warrant, which contained, that Arshad Mehmood son of Muhammad Iqbal Khan attached with 4 Mountain Field Ambulance was tried under Pakistan Army Act, 1952. Field General Court Martial has awarded the sentence of one year imprisonment to him, which has also been duly confirmed by Brigadier Muhammad Saad Khattak, Commander 75 Brigade. Now, when Arshad Mehmood has been tried under the Pakistan Army Act and a sentence has been awarded to him, then it could not be said that he was in the illegal confinement of non- petitioners. 4. As the brother of the present petitioner was not in the illegal confinement of the non-petitioners, but he was tried and sentenced to imprisonment, therefore, no question arises of his illegal confinement. Thus, this writ petition stands dismissed.