1990 PLP 824 (SCMR)
Lahore‑‑Petitioner Versus ZIA ULLAH KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 824 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman Saad Saood Jan, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Naimuddin, JJ |
| Parties | Lahore‑‑Petitioner Versus ZIA ULLAH KHAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 824 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 824 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman Saad Saood Jan, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Naimuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 824 (SCMR) (Lahore‑‑Petitioner Versus ZIA ULLAH KHAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Maqbool Elahi, Advocate‑General, Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents,
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30‑9‑1989 passed in Writ Petition No.5094 of 1987). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Questions raised in petition were common to a large number of other cases and related to interpretation of Constitutional provisions having general effect‑‑‑Questions raised being of public importance, leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Maqbool Elahi, Advocate‑General, Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents, Date of hearing: 30th October, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Government of the Punjab seeks leave to appeal against the consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 30‑9‑1989 passed in a number of Constitution Petitions and two Criminal Petitions wherein the establishment and the continuance of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials under Act XV of 1987 as amended by Ordinance NoXIX of 1988, was challenged.
2. The argument advanced was that the legislation was discriminatory, violated Article 25 of the Constitution, did not afford adequate protection to the accused as required by Article 10 of the Constitution and the Ordinance having expired on 12th February 1989, the Courts did not function or continue the proceedings. After hearing elaborate arguments and by a detailed judgment; the High Court recorded the following findings which have been summarised in Para.47 of the judgment as hereunder:‑
3. The conclusions that follow from the foregoing discussion are summarised hereunder:‑‑ "(i) that the impugned legislation though discriminatory on account of some of its provisions being disadvantageous/prejudicial to the accused subjected to trial before the Special Courts for Speedy trials are not hit by Article 25 of the Constitution as the impugned law has provided for reasonable classification permissible in law."
4. We consider that the questions raised in this Petition are common to a large number of other cases and relate to interpretation of constitutional provisions having general effect. The questions raised are of public importance and leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. The effect of impugned judgment is suspended so as not to affect the proceedings taken by the Special Courts after the 13th of February, 1989, till the date of impugned judgment. H.B.T./G‑270/S Leave granted.