1989 PLP 1324 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHANI and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1324 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1324 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1324 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1324 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHANI and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing; 15th March. 1989.
- By means of impugned judgment, Criminal Miscellaneous Application for quashment of criminal proceedings against respondent Masood Ahmad Dogar, an Advocate of High Court, was accepted.
- A criminal case under section 148/440/149, 1.P.C. ad been registered against the said Advocate on the basis of F.I.R. No. 34/85 lodged by Abdul Gharu at the Police Station Burewala. There were other criminal proceedings under section 10 7 /151, P.P.C. Those proceedings were also quashed.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 28‑10‑1987 in Criminal Misc. No.16‑Q of 1986). ‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑No error of law or any question of law of general public importance was pointed out‑‑High Court had correctly applied the law keeping in view the facts of the case‑‑Leave to appeal against order of the High Court was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing; 15th March. 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Abdul Ghani, Abdul Haq and Nazeer Ahmad, all real brothers, resident of Block No. P.126, Burewala, District Vehari, leave filed this petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 28‑10‑1987. By means of impugned judgment, Criminal Miscellaneous Application for quashment of criminal proceedings against respondent Masood Ahmad Dogar, an Advocate of High Court, was accepted. A criminal case under section 148/440/149, 1.P.C. ad been registered against the said Advocate on the basis of F.I.R. No. 34/85 lodged by Abdul Gharu at the Police Station Burewala. There were other criminal proceedings under section 10 7 /151, P.P.C. Those proceedings were also quashed. This petition is barred by 51 days. We called upon the learned counsel to first get over this objection. He repeated the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which are not sufficient to condone the delay but in spite of that we permitted the learned counsel to address us on merits. He was unable to point out any error of law or any question of law of general public importance. On the other hand, we find that before the High Court, section 78, A P.P.C. was pressed into service by the respondent. The application and operation of the aforesaid section was not controverted by the State (other side) that is why the learned Judge in the High Court observed that "the correctness of this proposition of law raised by the petitioner has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State who frankly conceded that the law has been correctly pleaded". Section 78 of P.P.C. is very clear on this point which lays down that "nothing which is done in pursuance of or which is warranted by the judgment or order of a Court of justice if done whilst such judgment and order remains in force is an offence". The High Court has correctly applied the law keeping in view the facts of 'B the case. The judgment of the High Court as such calls for no interference. The petition accordingly is dismissed. M.B.A./A‑494/5 Petition dismissed.