2013 PLP 1045 (SCMR)
The STATE through Prosecutor-General, Punjab — Petitioner Versus Hafiz IKRAM SAEED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 1045 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Gulzar Ahmed and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | The STATE through Prosecutor-General, Punjab — Petitioner Versus Hafiz IKRAM SAEED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1045 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1045 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Gulzar Ahmed and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1045 (SCMR) (The STATE through Prosecutor-General, Punjab — Petitioner Versus Hafiz IKRAM SAEED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sadaqat Ali Khan, P.G., Punjab and Ch. Zubair Farooq, ADPG for Petitioner.
- Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th April, 2013.
- 2. We have inquired from the learned counsel that to meet with the requirement of Article 174 of the Constitution while invoking the jurisdiction of the learned High Court under Article 199, it is not possible for the Province of the Punjab to sue the respondents through the Secretary Prosecution. He candidly conceded and stated that although under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, the Prosecutor-General and the Additional Prosecutor-General are authorized to initiate the proceedings before the learned High Court, but when we have pointed out to him that in the instant case constitutional jurisdiction has been invoked, therefore, the requirement of other constitutional provision to make such proceedings competent has to be fulfilled. On this, he stated that the instant order be set aside and the Secretary Prosecution, Government of the Punjab shall institute Constitutional Petitions for redressal of the grievance against the respondents. The learned Additional Advocate-General also conceded this position and stated that in such like situation, it is always the Province, which invokes the jurisdiction of the learned High Court subject to Article 174 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the private respondents has also no objection in passing the order, as it has been proposed hereinabove.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13-2-2013, passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in W.Ps. Nos. 4195 of 2010, 1755 and 1761 to 1765 of 2011.)
Arts. 174 & 199
Constitutional petition under Art.199 of the Constitution on behalf of the State was filed before High Court by Prosecutor General of the Province
Constitutional petition was dismissed by High Court on technical grounds that the same had not been properly instituted for Secretary, Prosecution of the Province and not the Prosecutor-General should have instituted the constitutional petition for redressal of grievance subject to Art. 174 of the Constitution
Impugned order of High Court was set aside and permission was accorded to the Province by the Supreme Court to file petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution through Secretary, Prosecution for redressal of grievance. Jawad Hassan, Additional A.-G. on Court Notice.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
In these cases Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioner under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been dismissed, on technical grounds, as the same has not been properly instituted.
2. We have inquired from the learned counsel that to meet with the requirement of Article 174 of the Constitution while invoking the jurisdiction of the learned High Court under Article 199, it is not possible for the Province of the Punjab to sue the respondents through the Secretary Prosecution. He candidly conceded and stated that although under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, the Prosecutor-General and the Additional Prosecutor-General are authorized to initiate the proceedings before the learned High Court, but when we have pointed out to him that in the instant case constitutional jurisdiction has been invoked, therefore, the requirement of other constitutional provision to make such proceedings competent has to be fulfilled. On this, he stated that the instant order be set aside and the Secretary Prosecution, Government of the Punjab shall institute Constitutional Petitions for redressal of the grievance against the respondents. The learned Additional Advocate-General also conceded this position and stated that in such like situation, it is always the Province, which invokes the jurisdiction of the learned High Court subject to Article 174 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the private respondents has also no objection in passing the order, as it has been proposed hereinabove.
5. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 13-2-2013 is set aside and permission is accorded to the Province of the Punjab to file a petition for redressal of grievance through the Secretary Prosecution under Article 199 of the Constitution. These petitions are converted into appeals and disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. MWA/S-16/SC Order accordingly.