1993 P Cr (PLP)
LIAQUAT ALI and 6 others — Petitioners Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LIAQUAT ALI and 6 others — Petitioners Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (LIAQUAT ALI and 6 others — Petitioners Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iqbal Mahmood Awan for Petitioners.
- Irfan Qadir, Addl. A.-G., Pb. for Respondents.
- 3. Faced with this situation, neither the Additional Advocate-General nor the learned counsel for the complainant are in a position to defend the impugned order.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302/148/149
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Venue of trial, determination of
Secretary, Home Department had directed the trial of the accused to be held in Central Jail instead of Sessions Court
Validity-- Executive Authority had no jurisdiction to determine the venue of the trial and only Trial Court could pass any order in this behalf
Such order of the Secretary, Home Department was consequently declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Judgment & Decree
Irfan Qadir, Addl. A.-G., Pb. for Respondents. Ishaq Wahlah for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1993. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question an order passed by respondent No.l in November, 1992 (Annexure `C') whereby the Secretary, Home Department had directed that trial of the petitioners m a case for murder registered against them under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Manga Mandi, Lahore vide F.I.R. No.199 of 1989 be held in Central Jail, Lahore instead of Sessions House.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Akhlaq Ahmad v. Government of Punjab and others 1991 M L D 739 to contend that the executive authority has no jurisdiction to determine the venue of the trial and it is the only the Court trying the case which can pass any order in this behalf. This contention of the learned counsel is well-founded and supported by the decision relied upon by him.
3. Faced with this situation, neither the Additional Advocate-General nor the learned counsel for the complainant are in a position to defend the impugned order.
4. They, however, submit that the trial of the case which was registered as far back as November, 1989 has been delayed due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused and further that as the accused are hardened criminals the trial in the jail would be in the interest of justice.
5. As regards the delay in the trial, the grievance appears to be fully justified. There appears to be no reason that the case which is under trial for the last four years should hang on. The Additional District Judge is directed to complete proceedings and announce his judgment within four months from today positively.
6. So far as other aspect regarding the determination of venue of trial is concerned, it is clarified that the order passed by this Court shall not be a bar in the way of trial Court in passing a suitable order keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable. With the above observations/directions, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. No order as to costs. N.H.Q./L-40/L Petition allowed.