1993 PLP 2011 (MLD)
M. RAMZAN — Applicant Versus ABDUL KARIM LANGHA, CIVIL JUDGE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2011 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | M. RAMZAN — Applicant Versus ABDUL KARIM LANGHA, CIVIL JUDGE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2011 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2011 (MLD)?
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 PLP 2011 (MLD) (M. RAMZAN — Applicant Versus ABDUL KARIM LANGHA, CIVIL JUDGE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tasaddaq Hussain Jillani, Addl. A.-G. for Respondent (on call).
- 3. Learned Additional Advocate-General informs that the allegation that the respondent/Presiding Officer had directed the applicant to sit and stand is incorrect. It does not appeal to reason also that the respondent/Presiding Officer, who was about to pronounce order of conviction, sentencing the applicant to imprisonment would ask him to sit and stand for 100 times. Not only the allegation is not well-founded but the learned counsel also has failed to show how does it constitute contempt of Court. The application is, therefore, dismissed being without merit.
Headnotes / Summary
S.3/4
Trial Court before pronouncement of judgment in a narcotics case allegedly ordered the accused (applicant) to sit and stand rapidly for 100 times by way of punishment which he being a weak man could do so for only thirty times
Said allegation against trial Magistrate was not only not found to be well-founded, but the applicant also had failed to show how did the same constitute contempt of Court-- Application for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, against the trial Magistrate was dismissed accordingly being without merit.
Judgment & Decree
S.3/4
Trial Court before pronouncement of judgment in a narcotics case allegedly ordered the accused (applicant) to sit and stand rapidly for 100 times by way of punishment which he being a weak man could do so for only thirty times
Said allegation against trial Magistrate was not only not found to be well-founded, but the applicant also had failed to show how did the same constitute contempt of Court-- Application for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, against the trial Magistrate was dismissed accordingly being without merit. Tariq Muhammad lqbal for Applicant. Tasaddaq Hussain Jillani, Addl. A.-G. for Respondent (on call). This application has been moved on behalf of Muhammad Ramzan praying that proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act be initiated against Mr. Abdul Karim Langah, Civil Judge enjoying powers of Section 30 Magistrate.
2. The applicant faced trial under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, in the Court of the respondent/Presiding Officer. The case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 18-5-1992, when, it is alleged, the respondent/Presiding Officer ordered the applicant to ' sit and stand rapidly for 100 times by way of punishment. He was able to do so for thirty times whereafter he fell down being a weak man. At this the learned Presiding Officer burst into laughter, the people present there clapped, and then the Presiding Officer announced that the applicant was sentenced to two years' R.I., a fine of Rs.5,000 and rive stripes. According to the applicant, the act of the Presiding Officer directing him to sit and stand in Court tantamount to contempt of Court and therefore action be initiated against him.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General informs that the allegation that the respondent/Presiding Officer had directed the applicant to sit and stand is incorrect. It does not appeal to reason also that the respondent/Presiding Officer, who was about to pronounce order of conviction, sentencing the applicant to imprisonment would ask him to sit and stand for 100 times. Not only the allegation is not well-founded but the learned counsel also has failed to show how does it constitute contempt of Court. The application is, therefore, dismissed being without merit. N.H.Q./M-1075/L Petition dismissed.