1998 8 C M R 611, (PLP)
ZAHID HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 8 C M R 611, (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ |
| Parties | ZAHID HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal 1 rocedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 8 C M R 611, (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal 1 rocedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 8 C M R 611, (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 8 C M R 611, (PLP) (ZAHID HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 1997
- Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 24‑10‑1997 of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench passed in Writ Petition No.529 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑S. 366‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Judgment‑‑‑Mode of delivering judgment by Criminal Court‑‑‑Oral order would not create any right in petitioners even if the same had been announced; only judgment in writing would be considered as judgment in the case in terms of provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The State v. Asif Adil and others 1997 SCMR 209 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 366‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. IS5(3)‑‑‑Transfer of petitioner's case from one Court to another Court, through administrative order‑‑‑Petitioners had claimed that they had been orally acquitted by Trial Court yet nothing was brought on record to substantiate the same‑‑‑High Court had heard petitioners at length and finding had been recorded on reconsideration of entire platter on judicial side‑‑‑Order in question, sending back case for disposal was in accordance with law and rule laid down by Supreme Court in Asif Adil's case (1997 SCMR 209)‑‑‑Transfer of case for disposal to transferee Court did not suffer from any illegality‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances. The State v. Asif Adil and others 1997 SCMR 209 ref. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The State v. Asif Adil and others 1997 SCMR 209 ref. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Date of hearing: 16th December, 1997 MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order, dated 24th October, 1997 passed by the learned Judge in Chamber of Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in Writ Petition No.529 of 1997 through which the said petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, through an administrative order passed by the learned Judge in Chamber of Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, the case of the petitioners for fresh decision was sent back to different Court from the one which earlier through oral order had acquitted them which was challenged in Constitutional Petition No.529 of 1997 by the petitioners from which this petition for leave to appeal has arisen.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that instead of sending the case back for fresh decision to different Court, the case should have been sent to same learned Judge of the trial Court who had earlier announced the order orally for acquitting the petitioners, for writing judgment of acquittal instead of fresh decision to a different Court.
4. The parties are not in agreement in respect of the crucial point whether through oral order, the petitioners were acquitted. Learned counsel for the respondent/caveator brought to our notice interim orders passed by the trial Court according to which the case on 27th January, 1997 was adjourned to 28th January, 1997 for announcement of order and there is no observation on the order‑sheet of the said date that the order had been announced orally for the acquittal of the petitioners, therefore, the case was sent back by the High Court on administrative side to different Court for deciding the same.
5. Learned Judge in Chamber after considering the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the case was rightly sent to the Court for disposal. It has been held that oral order did not create any right in petitioners even if the same had been announced as according to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, only judgment in writing is to be considered as judgment in the case. This view finds support from the judgment quoted as the State v. Asif Adil and others 1997 SCMR 209 in which this Court declared that only judgment in writing is to be considered judgment in the case and mere oral order does not create any right.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that before sending the case back on the administrative side, the High Court should have given petitioners opportunity of hearing. Since learned Judge in Chamber in the Constitutional Petition of the petitioners has heard them at length and finding recorded on reconsideration of the entire matter on the judicial side and the order sending back the case for disposal is in accordance with the rules laid down by this Court in the above case, therefore, the same does not suffer from any illegality
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merit which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. A.A./Z‑5/S Leave refused.