1998 PLP 763 (SCMR)
Mian MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 763 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan; |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. and Muhammad Bashir Jahangiri, J |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 763 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 763 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan; bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. and Muhammad Bashir Jahangiri, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 763 (SCMR) (Mian MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner, Raja M. Bashir, Deputy Attorney‑General for the State.
- Date of hearing: 14th April, 1996.
- Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner, Raja M. Bashir, Deputy Attorney-General for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑‑Art 184(3)‑‑‑Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3)Constitution of Pakistan‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Adequate statutory, remedies available‑‑‑Invocation of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of Supreme Court ‑‑‑Permissibility‑‑ When remedies and forums were available under the ordinary law, then those forums were to be exhausted in the normal course and resort should not be made to extraordinary jurisdiction of Supreme Court under which direct ‑Constitutional petitions could be filed. (b) Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 10(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.184(3)‑‑‑Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution‑‑‑Accused was being tried for Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 under S.10(2) whereby bail plea was to be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges in the High Court‑‑‑Supreme Court directed Acting Chief Justice of High Court to constitute a proper Bench and to dispose of bail application within a period of three days.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.
These three Constitutional petitions have directly been filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in which the prayer is for grant of bail on the ground that the bail applications are pending in the Lahore High Court and final orders have not been passed in view of the judgment of this Court on the subject of appointment of Judges in consequence whereof the two Judges on the Bench have become affected Judges arid are unable to participate in the proceedings any more.
2. We issued notice to the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan to assist the Court on the question of maintainability of these petitions, and in response Raja M. Bashir, learned Deputy Attorney-General, has appeared and taken the stand that these petitions directly filed are not maintainable. We are of the considered view that when remedies and forums are available under the ordinary P law, then those forums are to be exhausted in the normal course and resort should not be made to the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under which direct Constitutional petition can be filed.
3. We treated these petitions as ordinary petitions for leave to appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in these petitions is that the bail applications could not be disposed of for the reasons stated above and in such circumstances it should be considered that the bail applications have been rejected. It is also stated that the bail plea is urged in the High Court not on merits but on the medical grounds and in that connection two certificates are available issued by the doctors in which it is stated that the condition of the petitioner is such that further detention in the jail without proper medical attention can deteriorate his health condition and may cause paralysis.
4. We are of the considered view that the bail applications could not be disposed of by the High Court for the reasons which was beyond their control. It is stated before us that the petitioner is being tried for offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance IX of 1984 and under section 10(2) whereof bail plea is to be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges in the High Court. We 19 refused leave and direct the learned Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court to constitute a proper Bench as contemplated under the provisions of the law mentioned above so that the bail applications may be disposed of within a period of three days from today. Leave is refused and in the result the petitions are dismissed. H.B.T./M-86/S Petition dismissed