SCMR 1999

1999SCMR1317 (PLP)

MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION SADDAR, RAHIMYAR KHAN

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petitions Nos.956 and 957-L of 1997, decided on 6th July, 1998.
Honorable Judges
Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1999SCMR1317 (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ
Parties MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION SADDAR, RAHIMYAR KHAN
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999SCMR1317 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999SCMR1317 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1999SCMR1317 (PLP) (MUMTAZ AHMAD — Petitioner Versus S.H.O., POLICE STATION SADDAR, RAHIMYAR KHAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Nemo for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No. 956-L of 1997). Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No. 957-L of 1997).
  • Date of hearing: 6th July, 1998.
  • 3. The learned Additional Advocate-General, present in Court, has been issued notice. He sought some time to study the case and request it to be taken up after interval. .
  • 4. We have again taken up the case. The learned Additional Advocate /General frankly conceded that in the facts and circumstances of the case the observations made against the petitioner in paragraph 13 of 'the impugned judgment were uncalled for and were not relevant for deciding the real controversy arising in the case. We are also inclined to agree with him.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the order dated 26-1-1997 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Writ Petition No.32 of 1996).

Arts. 185 & 199

Expunction of observations of High Court

Observations made by High Court in its judgment against petitioner were uncalled for and were not relevant for deciding real controversy arising in case before High Court

Supreme Court converted petitions into appeals and order expunction of observation made by High Court.

Judgment & Decree

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.

Through this common order we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.956 and 957-L of 1997, arising out of a consolidated judgment passed in Writ Petition No.32 of 1996 dated 26-1-1997.

2. The grievance of the petitioner relates to some observations contained in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, which has been merged in the order passed in Intra-Court Appeal. The observation -sought to be expunged read thus:-- "

13. Bashir Ahmed claimed today to the open Court that all this was done by Mumtaz Ahmad, who is a very clever person and has a long criminal history and who is already married and has children. Without commenting on what he has stated, I cannot help observing that it is a very sad state of affairs that in our society such black-sheep are also in abundance. He cared little about the Injunction of Islam with regard to Iddat nor did he have any regard for the laws of the land and continued playing foul and trickeries one after the other."

3. The learned Additional Advocate-General, present in Court, has been issued notice. He sought some time to study the case and request it to be taken up after interval. .

4. We have again taken up the case. The learned Additional Advocate /General frankly conceded that in the facts and circumstances of the case the observations made against the petitioner in paragraph 13 of 'the impugned judgment were uncalled for and were not relevant for deciding the real controversy arising in the case. We are also inclined to agree with him.

5. Resultantly, we convert these petitions into appeals and allow .them. The impugned observations are expunged. The order of the learned Judge in Chambers having been merged in order of Intra-Court Appeal is set aside to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. H.B.T./M-248/S Petition allowed