2009 PLP 1289 (YLR)
ZIA-UD-DIN ZIA — Appellant Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD AJMAL and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1289 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Pir Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | ZIA-UD-DIN ZIA — Appellant Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD AJMAL and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1289 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1289 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Pir Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1289 (YLR) (ZIA-UD-DIN ZIA — Appellant Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD AJMAL and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss.417 & 561-A---Appeal against acquittal---Dismissal of appeal---Application under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. against dismissal order---Maintainability---Appellant and his counsel remained absent on date of hearing of appeal against acquittal of respondents, while respondents along with their counsel and State Counsel were present---Appeal having been dismissed, appellant had filed application under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. for setting aside dismissal order---Validity---Impugned order of acquittal passed by the court being just and proper was upheld and appeal against acquittal was dismissed---Application under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. was filed against orders which were final in all respects---Filing of application invoking powers of High Court under S.561-A, Cr. P. C. were untenable in the eyes of law---If at all appellant was aggrieved, he could have impugned order for proper remedy before the apex court, which was the proper forum---Present was not a civil matter, so that same could be reopened by way of filing interlocutory and miscellaneous applications---Application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. was hardly maintainable so far as prayer contained in it was concerned---Application under S. 561-A, Cr. P. C. was dismissed.
- Mehmood Habibullah for Appellant.
- Syed Ahsan Raza for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
SYED PIR ALI SHAH, J.--Through this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., appellant's counsel has prayed that order, dated 13-12-2007 passed by this Court my be set aside and the appellant may be extended opportunity to proceed with this case. Upon service of notices, both the respondents, namely, Shah Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Siddiqui have come forward along with their counsel Syed Ahsan Raza. Heard, arguments from appellant's counsel so also respondents' counsel and Mr. M. Iqbal Khalhoro, A.P.G. Perusal of order sheet shows that on 13-12-2007 appellant and his counsel remained absent while both the respondents along with their counsel were present and State counsel was also there. This Court after going through the impugned order, dated 9-1-2007 considered this acquittal appeal, which was at katcha peshi and concluded that the impugned order of acquittal appeal passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court was just and proper and as such the same was upheld. Consequently this acquittal appeal was dismissed which has now been subjudiced while invoking powers of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that great injustice has been caused while passing the orders, dated 13-12-2007 which were passed in absence of the appellant and his counsel. This application was filed on 27-12-2007 against orders, dated 13-12-2007 which were final in all respect. The filing of this application invoking powers of this Court under section 562-A, Cr.P.C. are untenable in the eye of law. If at all, appellant was aggrieved, he could have impugned orders, dated 13-12-2007 for proper remedy before the apex Court, which was the proper forum: It is not a civil matter, so that the same can be reopened by way of filing interlocutory and miscellaneous applications. Learned counsel for the appellant did not produce any case-law in support of his arguments. This application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is hardly maintainable so far prayer contained in it is concerned. Resultantly, this application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. being misconceived is hereby dismissed. H.B.T. /Z- 10/K Application dismissed.