2014 PLP 743 (SCMR)
SALAMAT ALI alias CHAAMA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 743 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, Gulzar Ahmed and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | SALAMAT ALI alias CHAAMA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 743 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 743 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Gulzar Ahmed and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 743 (SCMR) (SALAMAT ALI alias CHAAMA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Asjad Javed Ghural, Additional P.-G., Punjab for Respondent No.1.
- Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 31st August, 2012.
- 2. It is obvious that the learned trial Court exercised extreme patience and restraint but counsel retained by the petitioner adopted an attitude which has hindered the administration of justice. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court candidly stated that the attitude of counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial Court was most improper and should not be countenanced. Upon being questioned we have been informed that Malik Haider Zaman, Advocate continues to be the counsel of the petitioner even to date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the testimony of even one witness has not been recorded in the case so far. This contention is of little relevance considering the attitude of the petitioner's counsel noted in the order reproduced above. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that consequences of such attitude should not be visited on the petitioner, who according to him, had acquired a statutory right to bail under section 497, Cr.P.C.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 7-6-2012 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1496-B of 2012)
S. 497
Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973), S. 41
Bail sought on ground of statutory delay in conclusion of trial
Misconduct by counsel for accused
Progress of the case obstructed by counsel for accused
Accused condoning attitude of his counsel by retaining him
Effect
Counsel for accused appeared before Trial Court and adopted an attitude which hindered the administration of justice when he said that .
Contention on behalf of accused that to date testimony of even one witness had not been recorded in the case so far, was of little relevance considering the attitude of the counsel for accused
Trial Court had exercised extreme patience and restraint in the present case
Accused acting through and represented by his counsel had actually obstructed the progress of the case
Accused was still represented (at trial) by the same counsel
Accused by retaining the same counsel had, in effect, adopted and condoned the attitude of his counsel
Supreme Court observed that a competent, diligent and ethical Bar was an indispensable component of the judicial system; that the system could not function properly if members of the Bar did not adhere to the code of conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973
Bail petition was dismissed in circumstances and Supreme Court directed that a copy of present order should be sent to the Punjab Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings against the counsel in question, and another copy should be sent to the concerned Chief Justice of the High Court. Rahim Bux and others v. The State PLD 1986 Kar. 224 and Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State PLD 1995 SC 49 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioner seeks bail in the case F.I.R. No. 417 dated 20-6-2011 under sections 324, 427, 148, 149, 337-F(vi), P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Muridkaey, District Sheikhupura. The order which has been passed by the learned trial Court on 21-7-2012 is reproduced below in extenso:--
2. It is obvious that the learned trial Court exercised extreme patience and restraint but counsel retained by the petitioner adopted an attitude which has hindered the administration of justice. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court candidly stated that the attitude of counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial Court was most improper and should not be countenanced. Upon being questioned we have been informed that Malik Haider Zaman, Advocate continues to be the counsel of the petitioner even to date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the testimony of even one witness has not been recorded in the case so far. This contention is of little relevance considering the attitude of the petitioner's counsel noted in the order reproduced above. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that consequences of such attitude should not be visited on the petitioner, who according to him, had acquired a statutory right to bail under section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. In support of his contention, he referred to the cases titled Rahim Bux and others v. The State (PLD 1986 Karachi 224) and Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 49). We have gone through the cited precedents and note that the same do not apply in the circumstances of the present case because the same are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the present case the petitioner acting through and represented by his counsel has actually obstructed the progress of the case. This was not the situation in the precedents cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner by retaining the same counsel has, in effect, adopted and condoned the attitude of his counsel. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, misconceived as the present petition has itself demonstrated that the concession of bail or the discretionary exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 185 of the Constitution should not be exercised in view of what has been stated above and in the order of the learned trial Court dated 21-7-2012.
4. A competent, diligent and ethical Bar is an indispensable component of our judicial system. This system cannot function properly if Members of the Bar do not adhere to the code of conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973.
5. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. A copy of the order shall be sent to the Punjab Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings against Malik Haider Zaman. A copy of the order shall also be sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. We would like to express our appreciation for the dignified and firm approach taken by the learned trial Court in the face of provocation and trying circumstances. The office shall send a copy of this order to the learned trial Judge who was the Presiding Officer at the trial on 21-7-2012. MWA/S-8/SC Petition dismisse