2001 P Cr (PLP)
KHALID AZIZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SPECIAL COURT (OFFENCES IN BANKS), LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ehsanul Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | KHALID AZIZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SPECIAL COURT (OFFENCES IN BANKS), LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (II of 1984)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (II of 1984)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ehsanul Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (KHALID AZIZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SPECIAL COURT (OFFENCES IN BANKS), LAHORE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Farooq Bedar for Petitioner.
- Sh. Anwar‑ul‑Haq, Dy. A.G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed by petitioner/accused was resisted on ground that same was not maintainable as under S.10 of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, petitioner could file appeal which was to be heard by two Judges of the High Court‑‑ Petitioner hade alleged that his trial being in absentia was void and that had Constitutional petition not been admitted to hearing, petitioner might have resorted to file appeal‑‑‑Whole grounds including that of illegal absentia trial, could validly be raised by petitioner in appeal‑‑‑Even otherwise petitioner, who had not surrendered himself being fugitive from law, could not maintain Constitutional petition.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed by petitioner/accused was resisted on ground that same was not maintainable as under S.10 of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, petitioner could file appeal which was to be heard by two Judges of the High Court‑‑ Petitioner hade alleged that his trial being in absentia was void and that had Constitutional petition not been admitted to hearing, petitioner might have resorted to file appeal‑‑‑Whole grounds including that of illegal absentia trial, could validly be raised by petitioner in appeal‑‑‑Even otherwise petitioner, who had not surrendered himself being fugitive from law, could not maintain Constitutional petition. Muhammad Farooq Bedar for Petitioner. Sh. Anwar‑ul‑Haq, Dy. A.G. for Respondents. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General has raised preliminary objection that under section 10 of the Banks Special Courts Ordinance, 1984, the petitioner could maintain an appeal which is to be heard by two Judges of this Court, therefore, the writ petition is not competent.
2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial was in absentia, therefore, void. It is added that had this petition not been admitted to hearing than the petitioner might have resorted to file an appeal.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The whole grounds including that of illegal absentia trial could validly be raised in the appeal. The petitioner could explain the limitation with reference to sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The preliminary objection is upheld. The petitioner has not surrendered so far. He is for all intents and purposes fugitive from law, therefore, cannot maintain this petition. The same is dismissed. H. B. T./K‑41/L Petition dismissed.