1998 PLP 589 (SCMR)
HASSAN‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HALEEM SHAH and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 589 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hafeez Memon, Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo and Nasir Aslam Zahid, JJ |
| Parties | HASSAN‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HALEEM SHAH and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 589 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 589 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hafeez Memon, Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo and Nasir Aslam Zahid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 589 (SCMR) (HASSAN‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HALEEM SHAH and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Ishaque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Respondent No.1 in person.
- Date of hearing: 10th July, 1996.
- Hassan Inamullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State.
- 2. Mr. Hassan Inamullah learned counsel for Respondent No.2, states that in view of the legal position he is unable to support impugned order of the High Court and has no objection if the case is remanded to the High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 1‑4‑1996, of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 439(2) & 169‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Order passed against accused in revision without notice to him, illegal‑‑‑Accused had been earlier released under S.169, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Order passed by High Court to the prejudice of accused without notice to him as required by subsection (2) of S.439, Cr.P.C. being illegal was not sustainable in law‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was consequently converted into appeal and said order was set aside and the case was remanded to High Court for hearing the revision petition afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the accused. Hassan Inamullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Ishaque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Respondent No.1 in person. Hassan Inamullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Advocate‑General, Sindh for the State. Date of hearing: 10th July, 1996. JUDGMENT. ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J ‑‑‑The only contentions raised by Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner having been earlier released under section 169, Cr.P.C., the impugned order passed by the High Court without notice to the petitioner, as required by p subsection (2) of section 439, Cr.P.C., was not sustainable in law and hence the case be remanded to the learned High Court for hearing it afresh after notice to the petitioner. 2. Mr. Hassan Inamullah learned counsel for Respondent No.2, states that in view of the legal position he is unable to support impugned order of the High Court and has no objection if the case is remanded to the High Court. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, indeed, valid and the learned State counsel having rightly conceded to it, this petition is converted into an appeal and the impugned order passed by the learned High Court is set aside, and the case is remanded to the learned High Court for hearing the Revision afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The appeal is allowed, accordingly. N.H.Q./H‑253/S Case remanded.