1999 PLP 349 (MLD)
UMER HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 349 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | UMER HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 349 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 349 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 349 (MLD) (UMER HAYAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Shahnazi for Petitioner Miss Raeesa Sarwat for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/201/34
Bail of accused had been cancelled by Trial Court on the ground that his absence from the Court was intentional and the Medical Certificate submitted by him was not satisfactory
Medical Certificate issued by a competent Medical expert could not be brushed aside by expressing the same being unsatisfactory
If Trial Court had felt that the Medical Certificate was issued without any sufficient medical reason, a summary inquiry could be conducted by summoning the Doctor, but without doing so, the Medical Certificate could not be ignored in the aforesaid manner
Medical Certificate produced by the accused, therefore, carried weight and his absence on the relevant date from the Court was justified
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 9th July, 1998. Umar Hayat petitioner is the accused of Crime Case No 111 dated 23-3-1996 registered at Police Station Kot Moman, District Sargodha under section 302/201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. He was admitted to bail by this Court on 10-9-1996 with the condition to appear before the learned trial Court on every date of hearing failing which his bail may be cancelled by the learned trial Court. The aforesaid order dated 10-9-1996 was got executed by Umar Hayat petitioner who was released on bail.
2. Umar Hayat petitioner could not appear before Mian Jalal-ud-Din Akbar Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha on 22-5-1998. His bail was cancelled and the proceedings under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated. He moved the learned trial Court for condoning his absence and restoration of his bail. His petition was supported by a Medical Certificate issued by a qualified Physician and Surgeon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha dismissed his petition on 5-6-1998 by expressing that "the Medical Certificate is not satisfactory and that his absence was intentional". He was got arrested and sent to the Judicial Lock-up. He has filed this petition for his admission to bail.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the judicial file containing the Medical Certificate. My view is that the Medical Certificate has to steal the eminence and has to be given the paramount consideration for the purpose of the disposal of this bail application. The Medical Certificate has been issued by Dr. M. Akhtar Nawaz Lak M.B.,B.S. M.C.P.S. Physician and Surgeon Chest Specialist, Muslim Bazar Kot Moman. A perusal of the same has made out that Umar Hayat petitioner was admitted on 22-5-1998 and was discharged oi. 24-5-1998. He was examined by the medical expert who was suffering from diarrhoea, vomitting and dehydration. I do not agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha who simply made the passing remark that the Medical Certificate is not satisfactory. I am tempted to express that a Medical Certificate is to be issued by a medical expert and if he is competent in the matter his opinion cannot be brushed aside by expressing that the same is not satisfactory. There are water tight compartments of jurisdiction of pillars of the. State. A Medical Certificate has to be issued by a medical expert having the requisite qualifications. I would examplify that an ex parte decree cannot be ignored and held to be in exectuable on the ground that the adverse party has not been heard unless the ex parte decree is set aside. Some reason must be incorporated in the order if a Medical Certificate which is to be issued by a Medical Officer has to be ignored by not granting the weight to the same. In the instant matter Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Nawaz Lak is having the qualification of M.B.B.S.' M.C.P.S. If the learned trial Court felt that the Medical Certificate was issued' E without any sufficient medical reason, a summary inquiry could be conducted by he aforesaid medical expert. However, without proceeding in the summoning aforesaid manner the Medical Certificate could not be brushed aside and ignored in the aforesaid manner. I would express that any type of supremacy cannot be claimed or expected by the other Department including the Judiciary unless the Medical Certificate is dissected in accordance with law.
4. In view of what has been said above, I hold that the Medical Certificate submitted by Umar Hayat petitioner is entitled to weight and his absence on 22-5-1998 was justified.
5. For what has been said above, I treat this bail application as a Criminal Revision Petition, set aside the order dated 5-6-1998 passed by the learned trial Court and restore the bail. The bail bond etc. submitted by him already shall remain operative. Consequently the proceedings initiated under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are dropped.
6. Learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha shall immediately issue the release warrant of the petitioner as it has been intimated that Mr. Jalal-ud-Din Akbar Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha stands transferred without substitute for the present.
7. Copy dasti subject to payment of usual charges. N.H.Q./M-15/L Bail granted.