Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1989 SCMR 1324

ABDUL GHANI and 2 others vs THE STATE and another

Citation1989 SCMR 1324
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No,19 of 1988
Date1989-03-15
Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, Saad Saood Jan
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Abdul Ghani, Abdul Haq and Nazeer Ahmad, all real brothers, resident of Block No, P.126, Burewala, District Vehari, have filed this petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 28-10-1987.

2. ' By means of impugned judgment, Criminal Miscellaneous Application for quashment of criminal proceedings against respondent Masood Ahmad Dogar, an Advocate of High Court, was accepted.

3. ' A criminal case under section 148/440/149, P.P.C. Had been registered against the said Advocate on the basis of F.I.R. No, 34/85 lodged by Abdul Ghani at the Police Station Burewala. There were other criminal proceedings under section 107/151, P.P.C. Those proceedings were also quashed.

4. ' This petition is barred by 51 days. We called upon the learned counsel to first get over this objection. He repeated the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay which are not sufficient to condone the delay but in spite of that we permitted the learned counsel to address us on merits. He was unable to point out any error of law or any question of law of general public importance. On the other hand, we find that before the High Court, section 78, P.P.C. Was pressed into service by the respondent. The application and operation of the aforesaid section was not controverted by the State (other side) that is why the learned Judge in the High Court observed that "the correctness of this proposition of law raised by the petitioner has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the State who frankly conceded that the law has been correctly pleaded". Section 78 of P.P.C. Is very clear on this point which lays down that "nothing which is done in pursuance of or which is warranted by the judgment or order of a Court of justice if done whilst such judgment and order remains in force is an offence".

5. The High Court has correctly applied the law keeping in view the facts of B the case. The judgment of the High Court as such calls for no interference. The petition accordingly is dismissed.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch