Home Maxims & Terms Prosecution by Commission meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Prosecution by Commission

Prosecution by Commission legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2014 CLD 83 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent
Ss. 17 & 24Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), Ss. 29 & 38Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionProsecution by CommissionIllegalities committed by brokerPetitioner invested in stock exchange through his broker and suffered huge loss

Grievance of petitioner was that instead of taking penal action against broker, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, transferred his complaint for arbitration on the claim

Validity

Discretion vested with Securities and Exchange Commission under S.29 of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, was to be exercised with caution by applying yardstick for examining every case on its own merits

Specific allegation of non-provision of documents and loss of billions of Rupees could not be treated in causal manner and could not be set aside by taking the stance that it would open floodgate of such complaints

Function of the Commission was not of mere post office but of an agency, under duty, to conduct prosecution of offences in fit cases and such fitness could only be determined through investigation/inquiry, conducting a speaking order

Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, on receipt of complaint was duty bound to conduct preliminary inquiry for ascertaining as to whether any offence falling under S.17 of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969, was prima facie made out or not

In case offence was made out, the Commission should have itself proceeded with the same in terms of Ss.29 & 38 of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997

After preliminary probe, if the complaint did not find trace of such violation/offence, it could be referred to alternate dispute resolution by treating same as a dispute complaint

High Court set aside the action of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan sending complaint of petitioner for arbitration, as the same was unjust and improper

High Court directed Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan to proceed with complaint of petitioner

Constitutional Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Prosecution by Commission", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944344

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Prosecution by Commission"

CLD 2014
2013-September-17

2014 C L D 83

Haji SAIF ULLAH KHAN BANGASH — Petitioner Versus SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Islamabad
PLC(CS) 2011
Writ Petitions Nos.21820, 22548, 24910, 23386, 4041 of 2010 and 71 of 2011, decided on 22nd March, 2011.

2011 P L C (C

Ch. AMJAD HUSSAIN and 17 others Versus PUBLIC PROSECUTION DEPARTMENT through Prosecutor-General, Punjab and 3 others

Court: Lahore High Court
YLR 2023
2022-March-11

2023 Y L R 882

The CHAIRMAN, NAB through Prosecutor General Accountability — Appellant Versus AHMED and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Balochistan
CLC 2020
2020-March-17

2020 C L C 2037

Dr. SHEERAZ-UR-REHMAN and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary and others — Respondents

Court: Sindh
PLD 1957
the facts in each case. As a general rule, the important witnesses on whose testimony the case against the accused person has to be established, must be examined in Court and usually the issuing of a commission should be restricted to formal witnesses or such witnesses who could not be produced without an amount of delay or inconvenience unreasonable in the circumstances of the case

P L D 1957 Supreme Court (Ind

DHARMANAND PANT‑Appellant Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH‑Respondent

Court: High Court
PLD 2016
2014-September-22

P L D 2016 Peshawar 175

JAVED AKBAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents

Court: High Court
YLR 2015
Criminal Bail Application No.89 of 2014, decided on 5th August, 2014.

2015 Y L R 1746

SOOBAL and another — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent

Court: Sindh
PLD 2010
2010-March-30

P L D 2010 Supreme Court 841

ABID IQBAL HAFIZ and others — Petitioners Versus SECRETARY; PUBLIC PROSECUTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PTD 1982
Income‑tax Reference No. 69 of 1972, decided on 18th February, 1981.

1982 P T D 80

SOUTH ASIA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI (CENTRAL)

Court: Delhi High Court (India)
PLD 1959
Criminal Revision No. 640 of 1958, decided on 15th May 1959.

P L D 1959 (W

MANZUR AHMED and another‑Convict‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Court: