1992 PLP 1469 (SCMR)

Laws Cited

Representation

• Haji Ameer Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
• Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
• Date of hearing: 5th May, 1992.
• ----Ss. 55 & 56---Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, Ch. IV, paras.7 & 8---Advocate in the capacity of an Additional Judge of the High Court had earlier dismissed the bail application of the accused and when he appeared subsequently as an Advocate of the said accused in a criminal appeal in the High Court, the petitioner moved an application against him under Articles 7 and 8 of Chapter IV of Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette framed by Pakistan Bar Council which was dismissed by High Court---Petitioner had sought leave to challenge this order---High Court found that respondent Advocate had been superseded by another Advocate so far as the accused was concerned and he was not disqualified to represent other accused---High Court, in the concluding and operative part of its order had also observed that in such matters Bar Council was the competent forum and not the High Court to enforce its decision for upholding the canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette---Held, that in view of the operative and concluding part of the High Court's order the earlier part causing grievance to petitioner having become redundant petition was dismissed in circumstances.
• 2. The application was filed by the petitioner when respondent No.3 appeared as an Advocate on behalf of the convicts Habibur Rehman and Zabit Khan in criminal appeal who alongwith other three others were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge (West) Karachi, under section 302/149, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000 each. The other co-accused convicted by the Court are represented by other Advocates. The main grievance of the petitioner was that on 7-8-1987 respondent No.3 was an Additional Judge of the High Court and had heard the bail application of accused Rustam Khan and Zabit Khan. On conviction Zabit Khan filed an appeal through respondent No.3 who is no more a Judge and is practising advocate of the High Court. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 is debarred under Articles 7 and 8 referred above, from defending Zabit Khan and Habibur Rehman whose bail application was decided by him as a Judge. From the statement of facts it seems that the bail application of Zabit Khan was dismissed by respondent No.3. We had issued notice to respondent No.3 who is present in Court and is represented by Mr. Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme. Respondent No.3 stated that Zabit Khan is being represented by another advocate and he would not represent him. The learned Judges of the High Court while rejecting the application observed as follows:--
• "Bail application was rejected by respondent No.3 and it was held that prosecution could not be' blamed for the delay in trial of the case. Be that as it may respondent No.3 is now Advocate for only accused/appellant/convict Habibur Rehman, whose bail application was never heard by him nor upon the merits of whose case he had previously acted in a judicial capacity. Having been superseded by Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate, for appellant Zabit Khan respondent No.3 is not disqualified to represent appellant Habibur Rehman in this appeal. Even otherwise this Court cannot hold that respondent No.3 is barred from representing the appellants, or anyone of them, upon the merits of whose case respondent No.3 previously may have acted in a judicial capacity. Even otherwise the Bar Council was the competent forum and not this Court in such matters to enforce its decision for upholding the Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette. The application before this Court being incompetent and without merit is rejected."

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree