2008 PLP 812 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 812 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Alam Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 812 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 812 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Muhammad Alam Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 812 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9---Bail, refusal of--Bail application earlier filed by accused having been rejected, fresh bail application had been submitted by him on the ground of delay in disposal of the case as ordered by the High Court in earlier bail application---Record had revealed that the case had been put in court, proceedings were in progress and order sheet revealed that on each and every date of hearing, the witnesses were present but counsel for accused used to get the case adjourned on one pretext or the other---Apparently delay was not on the part of the prosecution, but it was the counsel for accused who was instrumental in delaying the proceedings and the impact whereof would have to be borne by accused---Case having been adjourned on the request of counsel for accused, fresh ground agitated in the application would not prevail with the court as the delay could not be attributed to the prosecution---Counsel of accused, specially in cases where accused were behind the bars languishing there either for their release on bail or for their acquittal or for conviction, was duty bound to assist the court and to provide speedy justice to his client---Such was not only the legal duty of an Advocate, but also as ordained by Allah Almighty in the Holy Quran to administer justice---Bail application was dismissed by High Court with directions to the Trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.
- Pir Bakhsh Mehtab through Adnan, Clerk for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 2008.
- ----S.41---Counsel and client---Duty of counsel---Under the canons of professional conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act and Rules, an Advocate was duty bound to assist the court in order to administer speedy justice, and any violation of the same would amount to professional misconduct and would disentitle an Advocate to remain on the role of Advocates.
- MUHAMMAD ALAM, KHAN, J.---Adnan, Clerk of Peer Bakhsh Mahtab, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner has submitted detailed written arguments, which were perused. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has been charged vide F.I.R. No.18, dated 13-6-2007 under section 9 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act.
- 3. Now the petitioner has submitted this fresh bail application on the ground of delay in disposal of the case as ordered by this Court in the order, cited above. Perusal of the record reveals that the case has been put in Court, proceedings are in progress and order sheet reveals that on each and every date of hearing the witnesses were present and the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner namely Muhammad Zahoor, Advocate Kohat used to adjourn this case on one pretext or the other. So apparently the delay was not on the part of the prosecution but rather it was the counsel for the petitioner who was instrumental in delaying the proceeding and. the impact whereof would have to be borne by the accused.
- 4. With regret it' is noted that since 12-11-2007 till 21-1-2008, the case was being adjourned on the request of the counsel for the petitioner. So the fresh ground agitated in the application will not prevail with this Court as the delay cannot be attributed to the prosecution. It is the duty of the advocate/counsel specially in cases where the accused are behind the bars languishing either for their release on bail or for their acquittal or for conviction, the counsel is duty bound to assist the Court and to provide speedy justice to his client. This is not only the legal duty of an advocate but also as ordained by the Allah. Almighty in the Holy Quran that administer justice because it is near to piety and nearness to piety means nearness to Allah Almighty and any one who violates the Holy ordains of Allah Almighty as described in this Holy verse, are the fuel of inferno.
- 5. Under the canons of professional conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act and rules, an advocate is duty bound to assist the Court in order to administer speedy justice and any violation of the same amounts to professional misconduct, disentitling an advocate to remain on the role of the advocates.
Headnotes / Summary
S.41
Under the canons of professional conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act and Rules, an Advocate was duty bound to assist the court in order to administer speedy justice, and any violation of the same would amount to professional misconduct and would disentitle an Advocate to remain on the role of Advocates. Salah ud Din, Deputy Attorney General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, KHAN, J.
Adnan, Clerk of Peer Bakhsh Mahtab, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner has submitted detailed written arguments, which were perused. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has been charged vide F.I.R. No.18, dated 13-6-2007 under section 9 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that Inspector Nasir Iqbal of Police Station ANF Kohat was on `gasht' and checking duty. In the meantime a Suzuki car VXR white colour was intercepted which was being driven by a person who disclosed his name as Muhammad Shafiullah Khan. On search a shopping bag wrapped in a red cloth was found underneath the seat. On recovery and weighing of the same, 3 Kgs charas was recovered from the said wrapper. Out of the same 10 grams were sealed in a separate parcel and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The report is in positive. Previously the petitioner Muhammad Shafiullah submitted application for bail which was disallowed by the trial Court. Finally it came to this Court vide Cr. Misc. No.1048 of 2007, which came for hearing before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tariq Parvez, Chief Justice, as he then was and who by order dated 12-10-2007 rejected the bail application. However he made observations as under:- "In narcotics cases, hardly 2/3 witnesses are to be examined which can easily be done in one or two dates. In view thereof, this application for bail is dismissed but directions are given to learned trial Judge that he shall positively conclude the trial within one month from today, failing which petitioner, if applies for bail, his application shall be considered favourably provided no adjournment during the said period is sought by the defence."
3. Now the petitioner has submitted this fresh bail application on the ground of delay in disposal of the case as ordered by this Court in the order, cited above. Perusal of the record reveals that the case has been put in Court, proceedings are in progress and order sheet reveals that on each and every date of hearing the witnesses were present and the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner namely Muhammad Zahoor, Advocate Kohat used to adjourn this case on one pretext or the other. So apparently the delay was not on the part of the prosecution but rather it was the counsel for the petitioner who was instrumental in delaying the proceeding and. the impact whereof would have to be borne by the accused.
4. With regret it' is noted that since 12-11-2007 till 21-1-2008, the case was being adjourned on the request of the counsel for the petitioner. So the fresh ground agitated in the application will not prevail with this Court as the delay cannot be attributed to the prosecution. It is the duty of the advocate/counsel specially in cases where the accused are behind the bars languishing either for their release on bail or for their acquittal or for conviction, the counsel is duty bound to assist the Court and to provide speedy justice to his client. This is not only the legal duty of an advocate but also as ordained by the Allah. Almighty in the Holy Quran that administer justice because it is near to piety and nearness to piety means nearness to Allah Almighty and any one who violates the Holy ordains of Allah Almighty as described in this Holy verse, are the fuel of inferno.
5. Under the canons of professional conduct prescribed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act and rules, an advocate is duty bound to assist the Court in order to administer speedy justice and any violation of the same amounts to professional misconduct, disentitling an advocate to remain on the role of the advocates. While dismissing this bail application, once again a direction is made to the petitioner as well as the trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The record be immediately sent back to the trial Court. H.B.T./208/P Bail refused.