P L D 1963 Supreme Court 23 (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J.-This appeal by Muhammad, Falak Sher and Gulla was heard and decided on the 2nd May 1962. Mr. Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khan was heard on behalf of the appellants. The appeal was dismissed, so that the convictions and sentences were confirmed. A considered judgment was delivered, which has been published in the Pakistan Legal Decisions (1962 S C p. 450). In July 1962 an application was received through the Jail from the aforesaid Muhammad complaining that he had engaged Dr. Tassaduq Hussain, a Senior Advocate of this Court, to argue his appeal, and had paid him sums of money from time to time, but when the appeal came before the Court, Dr. Tassaduq Hussain did not appear to argue on the appellants' behalf, nor did he inform the appellants' relatives that he would not be able to appear. Muhammad made two requests viz. (1) that as the appeal had not been argued by is own counsel, it should be heard again and he should be per mitted to engage another counsel and (2) that the fee he paid to Dr. Tassaduq Hussain should be ordered to be refunded to him. Enquiry being made as to the circumstances in which Mr. Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khan appeared in place of Dr. Tassaduq Hussain, it transpired that (1) Dr. Tassaduq Hussain had had to pay a prolonged visit to Dacca, and this case was one of those of which he could not get the date adjusted, and he had therefore entrusted it to Mr. Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khan; (2) Mr. Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khan directed Dr. Tassaduq Hussain's clerk as well as his own clerk "to inform Chaudhury Feroz Din (the Attorney in the case) for instructing me", and later, he met Ch. Feroz Din and informed him of the position and he said it was all right". Ch. Feroz Din explained that he was engaged "at the instance of Dr. Tassaduq Hussain", and that when he came to the Court, for the appeal, he met Mr. Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khan, who told him that he had been directed to appear by Dr. Tassaduq Hussain. It seems quite clear that the clients were never informed of these arrangements. Under the Rules of this Court, Advocates receive instructions from Attorneys, who are expected to keep in touch with the client. Attorneys are to be armed with power-of-attorney which enables them to engage counsel to represent their clients. Advocates do not possess this power. It thus become clear that through failure of understanding of their correct positions and the correct procedure, on the part of the Advocates concerned, but mainly on the part of the Attorney, the appellants had not been properly represented before us at the hearing on the 2nd May 1962. An order was accordingly made, on the 22nd October 1962 that the appeal should be re-heard, and to avoid the expense and inconvenience involved in replacement of counsel, it was directed that Dr. Tassaduq Hussain should himself argue the appeal. A. H. Order accordingly.