P (PLP)
GHULAM RASOOL‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Saker, J. C. |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Saker, J. C..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (GHULAM RASOOL‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Aril, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Government of India Act, 1933
Ss. 205, 219‑Court of Judicial Commissioner in Balochistan not High Court for purposes of section
205. The judicial Commissioner's Court in Baluchistan is not included in the list of Courts to section 219 of the Government of India Act which alone constitute High Courts for the purposes of section 205 of the aforesaid Act. Public Prosecutor, for Crown.
Judgment & Decree
The judicial Commissioner's Court in Baluchistan is not included in the list of Courts to section 219 of the Government of India Act which alone constitute High Courts for the purposes of section 205 of the aforesaid Act. Muhammad Aril, for Petitioner. Public Prosecutor, for Crown. ORDER.‑
This is an application under section 205 of , the Government of India Act, 1935, for the grant of a ' certificate to enable the applicant to file an appeal before the Federal Court of Pakistan against this Courts order of the 29th August. 1949 In Criminal Reference No. 14 of 1949. It will be seen that section 205 of the Government of India Act is restricted in 'rte application and applies exclusively to those cases in which " a substantial question of law &4 to the interpretation of the Government of India Act or any Order is Council made there under " is involved. No question of interpretation of the Constitution Act was raised by the petitioner before this Court and dealt with by the latter in its order of 29th August 1.946 against which the petitioner proposes to lodge an appeal in the Federal Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to have taken 14 correct view of section 205 of the Constitution Act. Another consideration which my opinion is, of great significance arid which debars an application of. this nature made to this Court is that the Judicial Commissioner's Court in Baluchistan is not included in the list, of courts in section 219 of the Government of India. Act which alone constitute High Coasts for the purposes of section 205 of the aforesaid Act. 'For the reasons stated above I reject this application and decline To issue the necessary certificate. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.