1986 PLP 1819 (SCMR)
GUL MUHAMMAD and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1819 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | GUL MUHAMMAD and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1819 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1819 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1819 (SCMR) (GUL MUHAMMAD and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazal-e-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1986.
- ‑‑‑O. XV, R. 6 read with O. XIX, R.2‑‑Adjournment of appeal‑ Advocate‑on‑Record pointing out that concerned counsel was engaged only for prosecuting petition for leave to appeal and not for conducting appeal‑‑Notice issued to appellants to make arrangements for their representation for prosecuting case.
- Fazal‑e‑Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- K.G. Sabir, Advocate‑General, N.‑W.F.P. for the State.
- NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑Mr. Fazal‑e‑Hussain, Advocate‑on- Record, appeared before us and stated that Mian Mahmud Ali Kasuri, who is being considered by the office to be the counsel for the appellants, is no longer their counsel. According to Mr. Fazal‑e‑Hussain Mr. Kasuri was engaged only for prosecuting the leave to appeal matter and that he was not engaged thereafter for conducting the appeal. He suggests that notice may be issued to the appellants calling upon them to make due arrangements for prosecuting the appeal.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-6-1977 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1976).
O. XV, R. 6 read with O. XIX, R.2--Adjournment of appeal- Advocate-on-Record pointing out that concerned counsel was engaged only for prosecuting petition for leave to appeal and not for conducting appeal--Notice issued to appellants to make arrangements for their representation for prosecuting case. K.G. Sabir, Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑Mr. Fazal‑e‑Hussain, Advocate‑on- Record, appeared before us and stated that Mian Mahmud Ali Kasuri, who is being considered by the office to be the counsel for the appellants, is no longer their counsel. According to Mr. Fazal‑e‑Hussain Mr. Kasuri was engaged only for prosecuting the leave to appeal matter and that he was not engaged thereafter for conducting the appeal. He suggests that notice may be issued to the appellants calling upon them to make due arrangements for prosecuting the appeal. Issue notice to the appellants apprising them of the above statement made on behalf of Mr. Kasuri and asking them to make arrangements for their representation for prosecuting their appeal. This case is connected with Jail Petition No. 84‑R of 1977, which presumably is lying at Rawalpindi. Both the matters should be fixed at Rawalpindi. In the meanwhile, the office should also enquire from the jail authorities whether the appellants have not by now served out their sentences and have since been released. M.I. Order accordingly.