1980 PLP 370 (SCMR)
TASADIQ HUSSAIN, -Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 370 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --- Art. 188-Review -Case alleged to have been disposed of for non prosecution when counsel of petitioner seriously ill and such fact brought to notice of Deputy Registrar with a request for adjournment of hearing-No information with Registry regarding inability of petitioner or his counsel or even Advocate-on-Record to attend case furnished nor contents of conversation with Deputy Registrar and clerk of counsel made available Nothing to show as to what prevented Advocate-on-Record and petitioner himself in moving Court in time for adjournment of case-Matter having been disposed of on merits, recall of order declined, in circumstances Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI.-Review |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TASADIQ HUSSAIN, -Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 370 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 370 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --- Art. 188-Review -Case alleged to have been disposed of for non prosecution when counsel of petitioner seriously ill and such fact brought to notice of Deputy Registrar with a request for adjournment of hearing-No information with Registry regarding inability of petitioner or his counsel or even Advocate-on-Record to attend case furnished nor contents of conversation with Deputy Registrar and clerk of counsel made available Nothing to show as to what prevented Advocate-on-Record and petitioner himself in moving Court in time for adjournment of case-Matter having been disposed of on merits, recall of order declined, in circumstances Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI.-Review bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 370 (SCMR) (TASADIQ HUSSAIN, -Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Mujtaba for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 23rd December, 1979. . .
- ‑‑‑ Art. 188‑Review ‑Case alleged to have been disposed of for non prosecution when counsel of petitioner seriously ill and such fact brought to notice of Deputy Registrar with a request for adjournment of hearing‑No information with Registry regarding inability of petitioner or his counsel or even Advocate‑on‑Record to attend case furnished nor contents of conversation with Deputy Registrar and clerk of counsel made available Nothing to show as to what prevented Advocate‑on‑Record and petitioner himself in moving Court in time for adjournment of case‑Matter having been disposed of on merits, recall of order declined, in circumstances Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI.‑[Review]
- Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Asstt. Advocate‑General for' the State.
- When the matter was taken up by us on the 4th of December, 1979, we found that the appellant as well as his counsel were absent, whereas Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Uns, was present for: the State. We, accordingly, decided to treat the matter as a jail appeal and proceeded to dispose it of on merits. In the application under consideration it is stated‑by Mr. S: M Anwar, Advocate, who was to appear for the appellant, that he was seriously ill at Lahore, and had previously filed an application in the Supreme Court for the transfer of this appeal to Lahore for disposal and that subsequently he had informed .the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court that the matter may be adjourned. It is stated in the applica tion that the counsel was not able to travel to Rawalpindi in his present state of health and as he had given information, ‑to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in time, the matter should not have been disposed of finally at Rawalpindi.
- We regret we are unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant. When the matter came up before us on the 4th of December, 1979, there was no information with the Registry at Rawalpindi regarding the inability of the appellant or his counsel or even his Advocate- on‑Record, to attend to this case. We are not aware of the content of the conversation, which may have taken place between the Deputy Registrar and the clerk of the learned Advocate. If the learned Advocate was indisposed, we do not see what prevented the learned Advocate‑on‑Record, and the appellant himself in moving the Court in time for an adjournment of the hearing of the case. However, the matter was not dismissed for. non‑prosecution, but was examined on merits with the help of the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to recall the order already made by us on the .4th of December, 1979, by which the appeal in question was dismissed, and the order of retrial passed by the High Court against the appellant Tasadaq Hussain was maintained.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order and judgment of this Court dated the 4th of December, 1979, in Cr. Appeal No. 94 of 1975).
Art. 188-Review -Case alleged to have been disposed of for non prosecution when counsel of petitioner seriously ill and such fact brought to notice of Deputy Registrar with a request for adjournment of hearing-No information with Registry regarding inability of petitioner or his counsel or even Advocate-on-Record to attend case furnished nor contents of conversation with Deputy Registrar and clerk of counsel made available Nothing to show as to what prevented Advocate-on-Record and petitioner himself in moving Court in time for adjournment of case-Matter having been disposed of on merits, recall of order declined, in circumstances Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI.-[Review] Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Asstt. Advocate-General for' the State.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.:‑This is a miscellaneous application on behalf of the appellant Tasadaq Hussain for recalling the judgment of this Court dated the 4th of December, 1979, in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1975. The applicant had challenged therein a revisional order made by the Lahore High Court on the 24th of November, 1975 by which he was ordered to be retried for offences falling under sections 409 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code. When the matter was taken up by us on the 4th of December, 1979, we found that the appellant as well as his counsel were absent, whereas Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Uns, was present for: the State. We, accordingly, decided to treat the matter as a jail appeal and proceeded to dispose it of on merits. In the application under consideration it is stated‑by Mr. S: M Anwar, Advocate, who was to appear for the appellant, that he was seriously ill at Lahore, and had previously filed an application in the Supreme Court for the transfer of this appeal to Lahore for disposal and that subsequently he had informed .the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court that the matter may be adjourned. It is stated in the applica tion that the counsel was not able to travel to Rawalpindi in his present state of health and as he had given information, ‑to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in time, the matter should not have been disposed of finally at Rawalpindi. We regret we are unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant. When the matter came up before us on the 4th of December, 1979, there was no information with the Registry at Rawalpindi regarding the inability of the appellant or his counsel or even his Advocate- on‑Record, to attend to this case. We are not aware of the content of the conversation, which may have taken place between the Deputy Registrar and the clerk of the learned Advocate. If the learned Advocate was indisposed, we do not see what prevented the learned Advocate‑on‑Record, and the appellant himself in moving the Court in time for an adjournment of the hearing of the case. However, the matter was not dismissed for. non‑prosecution, but was examined on merits with the help of the learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to recall the order already made by us on the .4th of December, 1979, by which the appeal in question was dismissed, and the order of retrial passed by the High Court against the appellant Tasadaq Hussain was maintained. As a result, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 45 of 1979, is dismissed. Petition dismissed.