1986 PLP 1016 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAYEE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1016 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAYEE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1016 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1016 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1016 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ — Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAYEE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1986.
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 2-2-1986 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35/Q of 1985).
Art. 185(3)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A & 439-A--Leave to appeal granted to consider question as to whether an application under S.561-A, Criminal Procedure Code was competent after exercise of revisional powers by Sessions Judge under 5.439-A, Criminal Procedure Code, in regard to same subject-matter as if it was an appellate power to correct errors in order passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly, when concurrent powers of revision were conferred on High Court and Sessions Judge.
Art. 185(3)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.145 & 146- Leave to appeal granted to consider whether orders passed in proceedings conform to Ss.145 & 146, Criminal Procedure Code.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑Leave to appeal is granted to consider the following questions: (i) As to whether an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P C. was competent after the exercise of revisional powers by the Sessions Judge under section 439‑A, Cr.P.C. in regard to the same subject‑matter as if it was an appellate power to correct errors in the order passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the concurrent powers of revision are conferred on the High Court and the Sessions Judge, and (ii) do the orders passed in the proceedings conform to sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C.? In the meantime, the impugned order is suspended and the disputed property bearing No. U‑218‑A, Mochi Bazar, Rawalpindi, should be attached and continue to remain so till the disposal of the appeal. M. Y. H. Leave granted.