SCMR 1982

1982 PLP 670 (SCMR)

MEHAR DIN-Petitioner Versus ALAMDAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER.-Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 10-R of 1982, decided on 17th April, 1982.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1982 PLP 670 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties MEHAR DIN-Petitioner Versus ALAMDAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER.-Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 670 (SCMR)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 670 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 670 (SCMR) (MEHAR DIN-Petitioner Versus ALAMDAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar-at-Law, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
  • R. A. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing : 17th April, 1982.
  • Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
  • R. A. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 24-5-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1364-B of 1981). Art. 185(5)-Leave to appeal-Petition barred by time in respect of original order-Order declining to make any clarification regarding another order unexceptionable-Notwithstanding argument raised on behalf of petitioner regarding law 'on question of bail to absconder finding support from a recent judgment of Supreme Court, case, held, not fit for grant of leave to appeal in view of its merits and circum stances, trial having commenced, large number of witnesses having been examined before one Judge and case having been transferred to another Judge for trial. Rao Qadeer Khan v. The State P L D 1981 S C 93 ref.

Judgment & Decree

Art. 185(5)‑Leave to appeal‑Petition barred by time in respect of original orderOrder declining to make any clarification regarding another order unexceptionable‑Notwithstanding argument raised on behalf of petitioner regarding law 'on question of bail to absconder finding support from a recent judgment of Supreme Court, case, held, not fit for grant of leave to appeal in view of its merits and circum stances, trial having commenced, large number of witnesses having been examined before one Judge and case having been transferred to another Judge for trial. Rao Qadeer Khan v. The State P L D 1981 S C 93 ref. Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar‑at‑Law, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. R. A. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 17th April, 1982. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal arises out of orders of the Lahore High Court; whereby it declined to cancel that bail granted to respondent No. 1 in a murder case. The petition is barred by time in so far as the original order of the High Court dated 24th May, 1981 is concerned. The order dated 27‑1‑1982 by the High Court declining to make any clarification regarding order dated 12‑12‑1981 is unexceptionable. And even if this petition be treated as within time in so far as the order dated 12‑12‑1981 is considered; on merits although the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding law on the question of bail to an absconder, finds support from a recent judgment of this Court in Rao Qadeer Khan v. The State P L D 1981 S C 93, we, however, do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal at this stage, because the trial having commenced, a large number of witnesses were examined before one learned Judge and the case now stands transferred to another learned Judge for trial. This petition accordingly is dismissed. Leave refused.