1983 PLP 295 (SCMR)
RASHID AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 295 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Shariat Bench |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Members |
| Parties | RASHID AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 295 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 295 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Shariat Bench bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Chairman, Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman, Pir Muhammad Karam Shah and Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 295 (SCMR) (RASHID AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yusuf Ali Khan, Bart-at-Law for Petitioner and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent).
- Date of Hearing :14th December, 1.982.
- ---Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI, r. 6‑Review‑Advocate appearing at hearing of leave to appeal petition not present at hear in of review application nor his appearance dispensed with‑Review petition not satisfying requirement of r. 6, O. XXVI of Rules‑Held, incompetent and dismissed.
- Yusuf Ali Khan, Bart‑at‑Law for Petitioner and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent).
- The main ground on which review is sought is that his Advocate‑on Record, Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan was hat authorized to argue the petition even in the absence of his counsel.
- This review petition is incompetent as it does not satisfy the requirement of rule 6, Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules inasmuch as the Advocate ‑who appeared at the hearing on 6th July, 1982 is not present at the hearing of the application for review nor his appearance has been dispensed with.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated I1-5-1982 of the Federal Shariat Court in Cr. A. No. 17-L of 1982).
Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI, r. 6-Review-Advocate appearing at hearing of leave to appeal petition not present at hear in of review application nor his appearance dispensed with-Review petition not satisfying requirement of r. 6, O. XXVI of Rules-Held, incompetent and dismissed. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, MEMBER: The petitioner seeks review of order dated 6‑7‑82 whereby leave to appeal was refused to the petitioner against his conviction under section 10 (2) of the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The main ground on which review is sought is that his Advocate‑on Record, Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan was hat authorized to argue the petition even in the absence of his counsel. This review petition is incompetent as it does not satisfy the requirement of rule 6, Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules inasmuch as the Advocate ‑who appeared at the hearing on 6th July, 1982 is not present at the hearing of the application for review nor his appearance has been dispensed with. We do not see any reason, in view of the ground taken, to dispense with this requirement of the rule and the application for review being incompetent is dismissed. Petition dismissed.