2006 PLP 605 (SCMR)
Dr. AZHAR ATTA MALIK — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 605 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. M. Jared Buttar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. AZHAR ATTA MALIK — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 605 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 605 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. M. Jared Buttar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 605 (SCMR) (Dr. AZHAR ATTA MALIK — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th July, 2005.
- Naveed Saeed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for NAB.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 27-4-2004 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Appeal No.1104 of 2002).
S. 10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
High Court had disposed of the appeal of accused in view of the request made on his behalf that he did not wish to challenge his conviction but only prayed for alteration in his sentence
Supreme Court was apprised that the counsel of the accused appearing in High Court had not pressed the appeal on merits against his directions
Said submission was unable to make the petition for leave to appeal competent before the Supreme Court, as the counsel was always authorized to make statement on behalf of the party for whom he was appearing
Petition for leave to appeal, thus, was not maintainable
Leave to appeal was declined accordingly. Naveed Saeed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for NAB.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 27th April, 2004 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the appeal has been disposed of in view of the request so made on behalf of the petitioner namely that (appellant) convict does not want to challenge the conviction but only prays that sentence may be altered to one under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 8 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 etc. When we inquired from the learned counsel that as to how instant petition for leave A to appeal is competent in such circumstances. He stated that counsel appearing for the convict/petitioner had not pressed the appeal on merits against the direction of appellant. We are not inclined to agree with his submission because learned counsel is always authorized to make statement on behalf of the party for whom he is appearing. Therefore, instant petition for leave to appeal is not maintainable. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave declined. N.H.Q./A-186/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.