1992 PLP 964 (SCMR)
THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHUL.AM AKBAR IASI ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 964 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry J |
| Parties | THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHUL.AM AKBAR IASI ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Expunction of remarks‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 964 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Expunction of remarks‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 964 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 964 (SCMR) (THE STATE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHUL.AM AKBAR IASI ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja M. Afsar Advocate‑General, Balochistan and SA.M. Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Adam Chishti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.K.N. Kohli, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30‑9‑1990 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.25 of 1990). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561‑A‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal by State before. Supreme Court against the judgment of High Court whereby, in its jurisdiction under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. the conviction of accused in election offence regarding submission of return of expenses was set aside and the case was remanded for retrial‑‑‑One of the reasons which weighed with the High Court was that `in spite of suspension of the conviction order and release order of the accused on bail the authorities had not released him and kept him in custody'‑‑‑Held unnecessary haste, particularly after filing the petition under S.561‑A, Cr.P.C. having been shown, even if there might be some questions which might require examination, Supreme Court would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction so as to grant leave to appeal‑‑‑Relief in the petition, therefore, was withheld on that account with the remark and emphasis that the High Court being a superior Court in the country and also being a Court at the apex in the province, was required to be shown due and correct respect in so far as its orders were concerned and that applied to all the litigants including the citizens and the State. ‑‑‑‑ Observations in the judgment of High Court which related to the right of a party to seek remedy before the Supreme Court, not being proper as it was' likely to be misunderstood were ordered to be expunged by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J; ‑‑ This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 30th September, 1990 .of the Balochistan High Court, whereby, in its jurisdiction under section 561‑A of the Cr.P.C. the conviction of respondent in an Election offence regarding submission of return of expenses was set aside and the case was remanded for retrial. One of the reasons which weighed with the High Court was that `in spite of suspension of the conviction order and release of the petitioner (respondent herein)'on bail on 26‑9‑1990 the authorities have not released him and kept him in custody'. This as we have understood from the arguments advanced at the Bar was, it further appears, due to unnecessary haste particularly after the filing of the petition in the High Court. In this view of the matter even if there might be some questions which might require examination, we would not exercise our discretionary jurisdiction so as to grant leave to appeal. The relief in this petition, therefore, is being withheld on account of the aforestated reasons wit the remark and emphasis that the High Court being a Superior Court in the country and also being a Court at the apex in the Province is required to be shown due and correct respect in so far as its orders are concerned. This applies to all the litigants including the citizens and the State.
2. However, before parting with this order we feel that the following observation in the impugned judgment which relates to the right of party to seek remedy before the Supreme Court in accordance with law, not being proper needs to be expunged ....`by filing petition for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is most unfortunate aspect of the case whereby the order of the Court is flagrantarily violated'. If the last part of the aforequoted observation; namely, which is underlined is read separately and independently of the first part' of observation then it seems to be in line with the finding of the High Court. However, in case it is read as extension of the observation which is not underlined then in the case with respect this part of the observation also is not proper as it is likely to be misunderstood. Therefore, we direct that the entire observation reproduced and quoted above shall be expunged from the impugned judgment. With the foregoing directions this petition fails and leave to appeal is refused. M.BA./S‑662/S Order accordingly.