1990 P Cr (PLP)
MULAZIM HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J |
| Parties | MULAZIM HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (MULAZIM HUSSAIN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ali Murtaza for Petitioners.
- Abdul Rashed for Respondent No.l
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14‑‑‑Additional Sessions Judge issued bailable warrants against accused on a complaint‑‑‑Order of Additional Sessions Judge was sought to be quashed on the ground that he had wrongly issued the process as he was not competent to take direct cognizance of such cases‑‑‑Accused neither appeared before lower Court nor did they surrender before High Court though proceedings were stayed at the time of admission of quashment application‑‑‑Even no application for exemption from appearance was made on behalf of accused who were till then fugitive in law and were absconders on record‑‑‑Accused, held, were not entitled to any relief as persons seeking relief should submit to the Court ‑‑‑Quashment application was dismissed in circumstances. P L D 1982 FSC 95; P L D 1980 Lah. 388 and P L D 1969 SC 89 ref. (b) Contempt of Court‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Criminal trial‑‑‑Attorneys and counsel warned for serious consequences of committing contempt of Court in filing appeal on behalf of accused who are absconders.‑‑‑[Appeal (criminal)‑‑‑Absconder]. Muhammad Sharif and others v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 638 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 203‑DD‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction vests with Federal Shariat Court in Hudood Cases under Art.203‑DD of Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Masood Shaharyar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioners have filed this application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for the quashment of proceedings pending against them under section 16 of the Zina Ordinance read with section 14 of Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. The complaint was filed by Muhammad Sher in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) East, Karachi on 4‑5‑1987 against the petitioner, who recorded the statement of complainant on 21‑5‑1987 and referred the case to Additional City Magistrate for enquiry and report, who recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted the papers back to the learned Additional District Judge, who by an order, dated 21‑3‑1988 issued bailable warrants against the petitioners in the sum of Rs.20,
000. The petitioners, being aggrieved with the order filed this quashment application.
2. I have heard Mr. Ali Murtaza for the petitioners. He has not argued this quashment application on the merits, but mainly he submitted that the Additional District Judge has wrongly issued the process as he was not competent to take direct cognizance of such cases. He has referred to cases reported in P L D 1982 FSC 95 and P L D 1980 Lah.
388. Mr. Masood Shaharyar, learned counsel appearing for the State, submitted that this application is premature and this is a mere irregularity, therefore, proceedings cannot be quashed.
3. Before discussing the merits of this case, there is one legal point involved in this case, which is that process has been issued against the petitioners. They did not appear before the learned Additional District Judge nor they have surrendered before this Court and at this stage the petitioners are fugitive in law, A but in spite of that neither the applicants appeared nor an application has been filed for exemption from appearance though proceedings were stayed while this application of quashment was admitted on 25‑5‑1988. In case reported in P L D 1969 SC 89, it has been held that persons seeking relief should submit to the Court. Presently the petitioners are on record as absconders. It has been held that B Attorney and counsel are warned for serious consequences of committing contempt of Court in filing the appeal on behalf of the petitioners, who are absconders and same view has been repeated in so many cases and I also referred to case of Muhammad Sharif and others v. The State reported in 1983 P Cr. L J
638. There is another legal point that a revisional jurisdiction vests with the C Federal Shariat Court in Hudood Cases under Article 203‑DD of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and there are number of authorities on this point. Without going into the merits of the case, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. This quashment application is dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑889/K Application dismissed.