1985 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL SATTAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus UMAR BADSHAH Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus UMAR BADSHAH Respondent |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL SATTAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus UMAR BADSHAH Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Advocate not appearing before High Court despite intimation‑ Prima facie case of committing contempt of Court found by High Court against him‑‑Advocate tendering unqualified apology and placing himself at mercy of Court, notice of contempt of Court discharged with warning to Advocate to be careful in future.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Petitioners. [22‑10‑1984]‑‑Mr. Mumtaz Mustafa Khan, Advocate has not cared to appear before the Court despite intimation card having been issued A to him. He be directed on telephone to appear before the Court tomorrow and explain his position. To come up tomorrow i.e. on 23‑10‑1984. Mr. Mumtaz Mustafa, Advocate. [23‑10‑1984].‑‑1 am not satisfied with the explanation given by Mr. Mumtaz Mustafa. He has shown reckless disregard for this Court, which prima facie tentamounts to contempt of Court. He is, therefore, issued notice to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act and why his license of advocate be not suspended. He shall file reply. He wants to file reply today.
2. To come up at 11‑30 a.m. Mr. Mumtaz Mustafa with Mian Allah Nawaz, Advocate. The reply to the show‑cause notice has been filed by Mumtaz Mustafa, Advocate. He tenders unqualified apology and assures to be careful in future. Although there is no doubt in my mind that he by not appearing before the Court despite his service has prima facie committed offence of contempt of Court punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 and his licence of advocacy is liable to be suspended yet in view of the unqualified apology tendered by him and the argument of Mian Allah Nawaz, Advocate, his counsel that since Mumtaz Mustafa has placed himself at the mercy of the Court, mercy be shown to him and no further action may be taken against him. I, as a matter of grace, feel inclined to discharge notice, with the warning that Mumtaz Mustafa, Advocate shall be careful in the matter of his attendance before the High Court. Notice recalled. H.A.K. Contempt notice discharged.