1987 PLP 946 (MLD)
HASHAM ALI — Petitioner Versus MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 946 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Akhtar Hassan, JJ |
| Parties | HASHAM ALI — Petitioner Versus MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 946 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 946 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Akhtar Hassan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 946 (MLD) (HASHAM ALI — Petitioner Versus MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.D.Tahir for Petitioner
- Rashid Aziz A.A.G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 19th November 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 9 & 15--Constitutional jurisdiction--First information report lodged against accused, by Martial Law team that he and his co-accused had fraudulently got transferred a sizable State-land in their favour- Decision already taken that case would be tried by Military Court- Accused seeking declaration to the effect that Martial Law Authorities had no lawful authority to exercise jurisdiction in matter and also praying for grant of bail--Decision of Martial Law Authorities to take cognizance of case and getting same tried by Military Court apparent from First Information Report--High Court, held, had no jurisdiction to grant such relief in view of ouster of its jurisdiction by Art. 15(3) of Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.
Judgment & Decree
AKHTAR HASSAN, J.--A Martial Law Inspection Team lodged the impugned F.I.R. with the police against the present petitioner, alleging that he and his co-accused Muhammad Tehsin had fraudulently got transferred sizable State-land in their favour. He prayed for bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2545/B of 1983, which was dismissed by our brother Ijaz Nisar, J. on the plea of the learned Additional Advocate-General that it was a case of which Martial Law Authorities had already taken cognizance and further that they had decided to get it tried by a Military Court. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner brought Writ Petition No. 3640 of 1983 praying for a declaration that since the matter involved was of civil nature, the respondents Martial Law Authorities or for that matter the S.H.O. Police Station Chuchak, District Okara, had no jurisdiction to interfere. It was disposed of on 1-10-1983 by a Division Bench of this Court upon an assurance of the learned Additional Advocate-General that the respondents shall not interfere in the matter until they were asked for further action by the competent authority.
2. Now he has brought the present writ petition reiterating the same averments and asking for the same declaration that the respondents had no lawful authority to exercise jurisdiction in the matter, and also for bail.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing before us stated at the Bar that it had already been decided that the case shall be tried by a Military Court. According to him, this intention was manifested even in the F.I.R. itself. The case was initiated by the Martial Law Authorities and this was the reason why the petitioner's two attempts made earlier in this behalf had failed. For obvious reasons, it was not open to ask for the same relief through a fresh writ petition.
4. The decision of the Martial Law Authorities to take cognizance of this case and getting it tried by a Military Court is apparent in the F.I.R. itself. The learned Additional Advocate-General reiterated the same opinion pointing out that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter under Article 15(3) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. The petitioner having failed twice earlier, could not be allowed to agitate the same point again and again. There is complete ouster of jurisdiction of this Court to grant either of the two reliefs.
5. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.