2004 PLP 1522 (SCMR)
ABDUL QADIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1522 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL QADIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1522 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1522 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1522 (SCMR) (ABDUL QADIR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muzaffar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizan-ul-Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th December, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 28-8-2002 of the High Court of Sindh, Larkana Circuit Bench passed in Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2002).
Art. 185(3)
High Court had dismissed the Criminal Revision petition of the accused as not pressed by the counsel
Contention of the accused was that he had not instructed the counsel to withdraw the revision petition and he had acted beyond the scope of his authority
Accused by executing Power of Attorney/Vakalatnama in favour of his counsel had given him authority to act, appear and plead on behalf of his client which included the implied authority to withdraw a cause and to settle the dispute on behalf of the client
No complaint admittedly had been lodged against the counsel before any forum
Impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity
Leave to appeal was declined to accused accordingly. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BAGHWANDAS, J.
Grievance of petitioner is directed against an order of the Sindh High Court whereby a criminal revision petition was dismissed as not pressed by the counsel.
2. It is, inter alia, contended that the petitioner had not instructed the counsel to withdraw the petition before the learned High Court and he acted beyond the scope of authority. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel as by executing a power-of attorney/Vakalatnama in favour of a counsel, he is given authority to act, appear and plead on behalf of his client which would include implied authority to withdraw a cause and to settle the dispute on behalf of the client. Learned counsel admits that no complaint has been lodged against the counsel, before any forum. There is thus no ground to interfere with the impugned order which does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
3. Petition is thus dismissed and leave to appeal refused N.H.Q./A-42/S Leave refused