2005 PLP 3052 (YLR)
THE STATE — Petitioner Versus RIAZ HANIF RAHI — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 3052 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Hakim Ali, J |
| Parties | THE STATE — Petitioner Versus RIAZ HANIF RAHI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 3052 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 3052 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Hakim Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 3052 (YLR) (THE STATE — Petitioner Versus RIAZ HANIF RAHI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ibrahim for Respondent No-2.
- ----Art. 204---Contempt of Court Ordinance (I of 2004), S.3---Contempt of Court---Contemner Advocate its his statement recorded in the Court had admitted to have uttered the sentences/words out the relevant date which had been read over to him by the Court again today---Advocate had not been able to explain his acts, deeds, actions as noted in the judgment announcer) today, filing of applications, utterances of contemptuous sentences during the arguments, interruption in Court proceedings etc, and no satisfactory explanation having been tendered, the contemner was held to have committed contempt of High Court---Contemner instead of showing regret or tendering for pardon had again shown a stubborn attitude---Contemner was, therefore, awarded a sentence of one mouth's R.I. with a fine of Rupees thirty thousand only under Art.204 of the Constitution read with Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2004---1n case of default to pay the fine the contemner was to suffer one month's snore simple imprisonment.
- Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate. Respondent No. l in person.
- Mr. Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate and Muhammad Ibrahim (Respondent No.2 in W.P. No.2018-2005/BWP) are present in person in the Court. Let statement of Muhammad Ibrahim be recorded on a separate sheet.
- Statement of Muhammad Ibrahim has been recorded. During the recording of statement of Muhammad Ibrahim, Mr. Riaz Hanif, Advocate has repeatedly interrupted the Court proceedings and has tried to guide Muhammad Ibrahim in making his statement upon which he was asked to take his seat.
- 2. Let statement of Mr. Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate be recorded on a separate sheet to explain the show-cause notice of contempt.
- Statement of Mr. Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate has been recorded on a separate sheet in which lie has admitted that he had uttered the sentences/words on 18-7-2005, which has been read over to him by this Court again today. As Mr. Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate has not been able to explain his acts, deeds, actions as noted in the judgment announced today, filing of applications, (C.Ms), utterances of contemptuous sentences during the arguments, interruption in Court proceedings, etc., and no satisfactory explanation having been tendered, I hold the contemner to have committed contempt of this Court. It may be noted that instead of showing regret or tendering for the pardon he has again shown a stubborn attitude. Therefore, I award him the sentence of one month R.I. and impose a fine of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Contempt of Court Ordinance No.1 of 2004. In case of default to pay the fine, he is to suffer one month more simple imprisonment.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 204
Contempt of Court Ordinance (I of 2004), S.3
Contemner Advocate its his statement recorded in the Court had admitted to have uttered the sentences/words out the relevant date which had been read over to him by the Court again today
Advocate had not been able to explain his acts, deeds, actions as noted in the judgment announcer) today, filing of applications, utterances of contemptuous sentences during the arguments, interruption in Court proceedings etc, and no satisfactory explanation having been tendered, the contemner was held to have committed contempt of High Court
Contemner instead of showing regret or tendering for pardon had again shown a stubborn attitude
Contemner was, therefore, awarded a sentence of one mouth's R.I. with a fine of Rupees thirty thousand only under Art.204 of the Constitution read with Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2004
1n case of default to pay the fine the contemner was to suffer one month's snore simple imprisonment. Ch. Shafi Muhammad Tariq, A.A.-G. for the State. Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate. Respondent No. l in person.
Judgment & Decree
Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate. Respondent No. l in person. Muhammad Ibrahim for Respondent No-2. Mr. Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate and Muhammad Ibrahim (Respondent No.2 in W.P. No.2018-2005/BWP) are present in person in the Court. Let statement of Muhammad Ibrahim be recorded on a separate sheet. Presence as before. Statement of Muhammad Ibrahim has been recorded. During the recording of statement of Muhammad Ibrahim, Mr. Riaz Hanif, Advocate has repeatedly interrupted the Court proceedings and has tried to guide Muhammad Ibrahim in making his statement upon which he was asked to take his seat.
2. Let statement of Mr. Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate be recorded on a separate sheet to explain the show-cause notice of contempt. Presence as before. Statement of Mr. Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate has been recorded on a separate sheet in which lie has admitted that he had uttered the sentences/words on 18-7-2005, which has been read over to him by this Court again today. As Mr. Riaz Hanif Rahi, Advocate has not been able to explain his acts, deeds, actions as noted in the judgment announced today, filing of applications, (C.Ms), utterances of contemptuous sentences during the arguments, interruption in Court proceedings, etc., and no satisfactory explanation having been tendered, I hold the contemner to have committed contempt of this Court. It may be noted that instead of showing regret or tendering for the pardon he has again shown a stubborn attitude. Therefore, I award him the sentence of one month R.I. and impose a fine of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Contempt of Court Ordinance No.1 of 2004. In case of default to pay the fine, he is to suffer one month more simple imprisonment. N.H.Q/S-420/L Contemner convicted.