P L D 2009 Islamabad 32 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SULEHRIA — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ISLAMABAD — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2009 Islamabad 32 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SULEHRIA — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ISLAMABAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2009 Islamabad 32 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2009 Islamabad 32 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2009 Islamabad 32 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SULEHRIA — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ISLAMABAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanveer Ch. for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition--Failure to supply copy of F.I.R.
Office had raised objection that petitioner had not supplied copy of F.I.R.
Counsel for the petitioner had contended that filing of certified copy of F.I.R. was not the requirement of law and petitions were received without submission of F.I.R. and only the statement of the counsel for the petitioner, at bar was deemed to be sufficient
Held, due to certain difficulties, it was ordered by the High Court that a photostat copy of F.I.R. would be filed invariably and on finding interpolations in the photostat copy of the F.I.R., in certain cases, serious note was taken by the Bench on administrative side, directing that in future no petition be entertained unless it was accompanied by certified copy of F.I.R.
Order accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, C J.
Office has raised Objection that petitioner has not supplied copy of F.I.R. Learned counsel has been heard. He contends with reference to "Mst. Razia Shaheen v. The State PLD 1997 Lah. 659, that filing of certified copy of F.I.R. is not a requirement of law.
2. I have examined the judgment and find that in the case cited supra, the F.I.R. was sealed and was thus not available to the petitioner, who was under apprehension of arrest and seeking pre-arrest bail.
3. I recall that some time back, the petitions were received without, submission of F.I.R. and only the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, at bar was deemed to be sufficient. Then later on, due to certain difficulties, it was ordered that a photostat copy of F.I.R. shall be filed invariably. Then another situation came when interpolation was made in the photostat copy of the F.I.R., which was taken serious note of by learned bench on administrative side, directed that in future no petition be entertained unless it is accompanied by certified copy of F.I.R.
4. Office objection thus sustained. H.B.T./M-8/Isl. Objection sustained.