1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ABBAS BALOCH — Applicant Versus Dr. SHAFQAT HUSSAIN ABBASI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABBAS BALOCH — Applicant Versus Dr. SHAFQAT HUSSAIN ABBASI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ABBAS BALOCH — Applicant Versus Dr. SHAFQAT HUSSAIN ABBASI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ayaz Hameed for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 14th February, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 435 & 561-A--Contempt of Court--Proceedings before Additional Sessions Judge--Quashing of--Applicant a Traffic Constable, had altercation with respondent a medical practitioner going to attend Court of Additional Sessions Judge in a case--Constable allegedly using derogatory language against doctors and Courts--On report of respondent, Additional Sessions Judge initiating contempt proceedings against the Constable--Petition for quashing of such proceedings filed in High Court--Held: Traffic Constable's alleged remarks would come under purview or-Contempt of Court Act, since proceedings were still pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, he was competent to make reference to High Court if prima facie a case was made out--Additional Sessions Judge directed to pass appropriate order--Observation on merits of the case declined in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The facts of the case are that on 12th February, 1987, Dr. Shafqat Hussain Abbasi was coming to attend the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, and was driving his car. He was intercepted by one Traffic Constable who demanded some documents. It is stated that Respondent, Mohammad Abbas Baloch misbehaved with the Doctor and passed some derogatory remarks against the behaviour of Doctors and also Judges of the Courts. Dr. Shafqat Hussain Abbasi moved such application and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (South), Karachi, issued notice to the Traffic constable, Mohammad Abbas Baloch. In pursuance of the notice, respondent appeared and furnished his reply as well as filed a statement on oath. The proceedings under the Contempt of Court are pending in the above Court and this quashment application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. has been filed whereby the proceedings initiated by the learned Judge have been challenged. . I have heard Mr. Hameed Ayaz, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mohammad Abbas Baloch. It is argued that respondent has not committed any offence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of such offence under. the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. He has referred to the provisions of Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1976 and submitted that it is only the High Court and the Supreme Court, who can take an action. The main grievance of the learned Counsel is that since one year the proceedings are pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but he has not passed any order and this is abuse of process of Court. On the other hand, Dr. Shafqat Hussain Abbasi is present and he is prepared to make a statement on oath that Applicant made such remarks which come under the purview of Contempt of Court Act, 1976. The proceedings are still pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. In all fairness, he should have passed some appropriate order according to law. There are some provisions under Section 480 Cr.P.C. whereby the Courts can take an action for the Contempt of Court. At this stage, it would not be proper fort this Court to make any observation on the merits of this case. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, in my view car, make such a reference to the High Court if he is satisfied that prima facie case under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, is made out. However. I direct the 1st Additional Sessions Judge to pass an appropriate order within a week as all the formalities have already been complied with. With these observations, this quashment application is disposed of as dismissed. S.A./M-405/K Application dismissed.