1980 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, SAHIWAL AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1980 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zakiuddin Pal, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, SAHIWAL AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zakiuddin Pal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, SAHIWAL AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioners.
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramdey, A. A.‑G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Art. 212‑A read with. Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), S. 3 Contempt of Court‑Jurisdiction of Court challenged‑Stay order, held, car. be granted by such Court notwithstanding challenge‑Objection with regard to jurisdiction‑To be determined ultimately by Court itself and not by any other authority‑Matter with regard to jurisdic tion of High Court and effect of Art. 212‑A, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) being sub judice before Full Bench of High Court stay order granted by High Court, held further, still operative and violation of such order open to legal action.‑[Jurisdiction‑Contempt of Court].
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioners. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramdey, A. A.‑G. for Respondents. Writ Petition No. 2927 of 1979, fled by the petitioners, was admitted to regular hearing by this Court on 2‑6‑1979. Further proceedings before the Summary Military Court were stayed. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the stay order granted by this Court proceedings have been started after they had been apprehended. The present Criminal Original has been filed for punishing the respondents for contempt of this Court for violating the aforesaid order.
2. The petitioners have been apprehended and proceeded against by the Summary Military Court, probably, under the impression that on account of the promulgation of Article 212‑A of the Constitution the writ petition has abated. I don't want to make any observation in this behalf as the matter is sub judice before the Full Bench of this Court ; as to what is the effect of the aforesaid constitutional provision ; whether it ousts the jurisdiction of this Court. However, in a given case where jurisdiction of the Court is challenged, stay order can be granted irrespective of the objection with regard to jurisdic tion which is to be determined ultimately by the Court itself and not by any other authority. Since the matter with regard to jurisdiction of this Count and the effect of the aforesaid constitutional provisions is sub judice, therefore, the stay order granted by this Court is still operative. Any body violating the afore‑said order staying the proceedings will do so at the risk of legal action to be taken against him.
3. Mr. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman. Ramdey, A. A.‑G., who is present in the Court, will have report and parawise comments from the respondents within a week. Case to come up on 10‑12‑1979. Orders accordingly.