Telegraph Act 1885 case laws and citations

Citation Name:   PLJ  2017  Cr.C   800

 Appelant Side:    MUHAMMAD ISHAQ

V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   STATE & another
Judge Name:       CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND TARIQ IFTIKHAR AHMAD
Other Law Journal References:    
telegraph act, 1885 (xiii of 1885)-- ----s. 25-d--anti-terrorism act, (xxvii of 1997), s. 7(h)--conviction and sentence--challenge to--allegation of--appellant made obnoxious telephonic call at police service centre, rescue 15--none of them uttered a single word that present appellant was member of any terrorist group or organization invoked in terrorist activities--what was his purpose to make fake call prosecution evidence is silent--admittedly appellant was not named in first information report--neither sim in question was in his name nor same was recovered from his possession during investigation--there is no forensic report qua comparison of voice report which might have established that aforesaid call was made by present appellant--during cross-examination this witness not only massively deviated from his previous statement got recorded under section 161, cr.p.c. but also admitted that accused was his relative--pw, inspector was one of members of jit who conducted investigation of this case--in cross-examination he stated that he did not investigate as to what was actual amount due towards accused present appellant--however, he stated that father of pw made application to s.h.o., police station for recovery of rs. 2,00,000/- from accused--this fact negates version of pw that appellant received rs. 3,50,000/---testimony of prosecution witnesses was un-reliable--position taken by appellant in defence was that brother of pw was his friend who abducted a girl before registration of instant case--as hs was against this act so he managed to return aforesaid lady to her father--brother of pw got annoyed and later on involved him in this case falsely this fact was not denied by pw while appearing before court who in cross-examination admitted that a girl was abducted by his brother--even i.o. fortified this fact--he stated that during investigation it came into his knowledge that brother of pw abducted a girl from basti malook prior to registration of instant f.i.r., however, he did not investigate that matter--in this scenario, if versions of both sides are put in juxta position stance taken by defence appears to be more plausible--on re-appraisal of evidence that prosecution has failed to prove charge against appellant--criminal appeal was allowed. [pp. 803 & 804] a, b & c


Citation Name:   PLJ  2014  Cr.C   408
Appelant Side:    MUHAMMAD IRFAN etc.
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   STATE, etc.
Judge Name:       Arshad Mehmood Tabassum
Other Law Journal References:    

criminal procedure code, 1898 (v of 1898)-- ----s. 498--pakistan penal code, (xlv of 1860), s. 506--telegraph act, s. 25-d--bail before arrest, confirmed--telephonic calls--dire consequences--as many as four persons were implicated in instnat case and it was difficult to ascertain, at that stage, as to who made the said telephonic calls of dire consequences.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2014  Cr.C   292
Appelant Side:    SHAHID ISLAM
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   STATE, etc.
Judge Name:       M. Sohail Iqbal Bhatti
Other Law Journal References:    

criminal procedure code, 1898 (v of 1898)-- ----s. 498--telegraph act, 1885, s. 25-d--bail before arrest, dismissal of--receiving obnoxious and threatening calls as well as text messages--data was obtained from cellular companies--validity--obnoxious and threatening calls made to mother of young girls cause serious mental agony and anguish which may entail consequences beyond any control--where feeling of insecurity is rampant among the people, such kinds of threats and obnoxious calls should not be allowed and concession should be extended to persons who were involved in making such like calls--high court was not inclined to extend an extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail to the accused, therefore, interim bail was hereby recalled and bail petition was dismissed.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2014  Cr.C   252
Appelant Side:    MUHAMMAD RAZA
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   STATE and another
Judge Name:       Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi
Other Law Journal References:    

criminal procedure code, 1898 (v of 1898)-- ----s. 497--pakistan penal code, (xlv of 1860), ss. 376, 406, 511, 365-b r/w telegraphic act, s. 25-d--bail, grant of--allegation of abduction--sister of the complainant, whose marriage was being resisted allegedly by the petitioner, has since been married and settled at dubai in her new matrimonial life--the maximum allegation was the intimidation and to attempt to commit abduction and also within the meaning of section 25-d of telegraphic act--petitioner was behind the bars and although the challan has been submitted before the trial court but the trial was not underway and its early conclusion was not in sight, thus the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period which would be nothing but a punishment without trial which is against the spirit of law--bail allowed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PLJ 2019 Lahore 132

PLJ 2019 Lahore 132 [Multan Bench Multan] Present: Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J. BAQIR HAMEED and another--Petitioners versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary and 4 others--Respondents W.P. No. 12396 of 2017, heard on 20.6.2018. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional Petition--Recruitment of educators--Clearance of NTS and interview--Petitioners were selected--Withdrawal of appointment letters--Non-issuance of show-cause notice--Recruitment policy 2016-17--Equivalence of Master Degress--Principle of locus poenitenciae--Question of whether LLB degree would be treated equal to Graduation or Master--Determination--In advertisement for appointment, LL.B is one of academic qualifications required for purpose of appointment, which is mentioned alongwith qualification of Master Degree and degrees equivalent to Master and Bachelor are also included in prescribed qualification--Higher Education Commission vide its letter dated July 27th 2017, has declared Bachelor of la...
Read more
 Citation Name : 2008 MLD 1018 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Side Appellant : Sardar MUHAMMAD ASIF Side Opponent : State S. 514--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 468, 471 & 109---Forfeiture of bond---Applicant stood surety for accused, memo of surety produced by applicant was accepted by the court below and after execution of bond, custody of accused was handed over to him with direction to produce accused on each and every date of hearing in court--Surety was duty bound to cause attendance of accused in court on each and every date of hearing and failure of accused to attend the court would react on the surety---If despite of notice served on surety by the court, he failed to produce accused in court, court would be within its right and power to forfeit surety bond under S.514, Cr.P.C. and further impose fine thereby directing surety to deposit full quantum of surety bond---Accused had frequently jumped bail with intention that reduced quantum of the surety bond would be dep...
Read more
 Citation Name : 2008 YLR 732 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : SHAHID Side Opponent : State S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419 & 420 ---bail , grant of---Offences with which accused had been charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Accused was behind the bars since his arrest on 2-12-2006---bail should not be withheld as a matter of punishment---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances. Citation Name : 2008 YLR 286 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AFZAL Side Opponent : State S. 497---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (10 of 1984), Sched. ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.408/420 /468/471/380-bail , refused of---Offences with which the accused were charged were mentioned in the Schedule attached with the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, provisions of which had the overriding effect, by virtue of its section 5 making the offences non-bail able---Accused were...
Read more