2010 PLP 427 (GBLR)
Suo Motu Case No.9 of 2009
| Citation | 2010 PLP 427 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqoob, J |
| Parties | Suo Motu Case No.9 of 2009 |
| Primary Law | Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 427 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 427 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqoob, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 427 (GBLR) (Suo Motu Case No.9 of 2009). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan.
- The learned Advocate General assisted by Deputy Secretary Home and acting S.P. Gilgit has stated that in compliance of the order of this court, the case was registered at Police Station City Gilgit and placing on record the post mortem report of deceased has informed the court that post mortem examination as per direction of this court has been conducted by a team of Doctors of PIMS Islamabad. He further stated that investigation of case was entrusted to Islamabad Police which is in progress and on completion of investigation, the final report shall be prepared by the local police for placing the same before the court of competent jurisdiction. The Deputy Secretary has stated that the Islamabad Police shall be asked for early completion of investigation. The S.P. states that undoubtedly deceased died in Police custody but as per medical report, it was natural death and consequently the local police would not be responsible for his death.
- In view of the position explained by the Advocate General and Deputy Secretary Home, no further order is required to be passed and there is also no need to keep this case pending, therefore, the matter is disposed of with direction that local police on receipt of investigation report will submit final report accordingly before the Court concerned for appropriate action in accordance with law.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 61
Suo motu jurisdiction of Supreme Appellate Court
Original jurisdiction of Supreme Appellate Court
Supreme Appellate Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, observed that deceased having died in Police custody, notwithstanding the ultimate result of the case, Police could settle the matter with legal heirs of deceased to their satisfaction; and instead of seeking any favourable order from the court, could enter into compromise with them by paying compensation, as was permissible under the law, before the Sessions Judge concerned
No further order was passed and case was not kept pending
Matter was disposed of with direction that local Police, on receipt of investigation report, would submit final report accordingly before the court concerned for appropriate action in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
The learned Advocate General assisted by Deputy Secretary Home and acting S.P. Gilgit has stated that in compliance of the order of this court, the case was registered at Police Station City Gilgit and placing on record the post mortem report of deceased has informed the court that post mortem examination as per direction of this court has been conducted by a team of Doctors of PIMS Islamabad. He further stated that investigation of case was entrusted to Islamabad Police which is in progress and on completion of investigation, the final report shall be prepared by the local police for placing the same before the court of competent jurisdiction. The Deputy Secretary has stated that the Islamabad Police shall be asked for early completion of investigation. The S.P. states that undoubtedly deceased died in Police custody but as per medical report, it was natural death and consequently the local police would not be responsible for his death. Be that as it may, the Court cannot comment on merits at this stage and since deceased died in Police Custody, therefore, notwithstanding the ultimate result of the case, the Police may settle the matter with legal heirs of deceased to their satisfaction and instead of seeking any favourable order from the Court may enter into compromise with them by paying compensation, as is permissible under the law, before the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit. In view of the position explained by the Advocate General and Deputy Secretary Home, no further order is required to be passed and there is also no need to keep this case pending, therefore, the matter is disposed of with direction that local police on receipt of investigation report will submit final report accordingly before the Court concerned for appropriate action in accordance with law. H.B.T./44/Glt Order accordingly.