P L D 1992 Supreme Court 67 (PLP)
SHUKAR DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus INAMULLAH and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1992 Supreme Court 67 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ.and Abdul Shakurul Salam, J |
| Parties | SHUKAR DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus INAMULLAH and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1992 Supreme Court 67 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1992 Supreme Court 67 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ.and Abdul Shakurul Salam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1992 Supreme Court 67 (PLP) (SHUKAR DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus INAMULLAH and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Waahid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. M. Ismail, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1. S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1991,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25‑8‑1991 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.511 of 1991). (a) Practice and procedure‑ ‑‑‑‑ All parties and their counsel were bound to assist the Court in pursuance of the rule of good conduct in the Court; namely, when seeking justice do justice. (b) Islamic Jurisprudence‑ ‑‑‑‑ Administration of justice‑‑‑All parties and their counsel were bound to assist the Court in pursuance of the rule of good conduct in the Court; namely, when seeking justice do justice.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ: ‑‑The complainant side in a challan case has called in question the remand of the case by the High Court on appeal filed by the accused/convict in the said case. According to learned counsel the respondent Inamullah was challaned in a case registered by the police on the complaint of the petitioner. He was convicted for murder with the sentence of life imprisonment and fine. During the hearing of the appeal the learned Judge in the High Court discovered that the complaint case filed from the accused side which purported to be cross‑case had not been tried and concluded in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts from time to time. As a result the respondent's appeal was allowed and the case was remanded for fresh trial in accordance with law. After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the aforenoticed rule of practice had not been satisfied and that in so far as the legality of the order of remand is concerned, it may not be possible to assail the same. He, however, . vehemently argued that this defect should have been pointed out at the trial stage by the other side. But he failed to advance the point any further when questioned as to why the petitioner side did not perform the same duty to the Court‑‑as all the parties and their counsel were bound to assist the Court in pursuance of the rule of good conduct in the Court; namely, when seeking justice do justice. This saluable rule of practice has also the support of Islamic jurisprudence. In the fight of the foregoing discussion no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Leave, to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.BA./S‑651/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed,