1. ' This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Application invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Requesting for expunging the remarks passed by this Court while deciding the Criminal Bail Application No,927 of 1993.
2. ' The petitioner Mr. Muhammad Hayat Qureshi was appearing on behalf of the Advocate-General in the said bail application and he had raised no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant Muhammad Khalid in that bail application. The request for bail of applicant Muhammad Khalid was turned down by my learned brother Mr. Justice Mukhtiar Ahmad Junejo, the Judge of this Court (as he then was) on 22-11-1993. At the same time, in the last para. Of the order it was observed as under:--- "Lastly it is regrettable to note that in such a serious case involving murder, learned Advocates appearing for the Advocate-General namely Mr. Muhammad Hayat Qureshi conveniently gave statement to the effect that he had no objection if the applicant was granted bail. He said so without arguing merits of the case. Such conduct by learned Advocate requires to be examined at the highest level. A copy of this para be sent to the Law Department, Government of Sindh to the Home Department Government of Sindh and to the Advocate-General, Sindh for any action deemed fit."
3. ' This portion of the order affected the petitioner at this stage and he lost his work in the office of Advocate-General. On 27-12-1993 the petitioner filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Application and requested for expunging the above-noted paragraph from the order dated 22-11-1993. The services of Mr. A.Q. Halepota were requisitioned by the Court as amicus curiae. Today I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, amicus curiae Mr. A.Q. Halepota and A.A.-G. Syed Amjad Ali Shah. The first question before me was about the competency of this application as it sought a sort of a review of the previous order of a Single Judge of this Court, but Mr. A.Q. Halepota contended that expunging of observations damaging to any person in the judgment did not amount to reviewing of the judgment and that the same Court had the power to expunge the damaging remarks as it was generally the view of the Courts that remarks should not be made against a person who had no chance to explain his conduct. On that point the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Muhammad Naeem (AIR 1964 SC 703 (V) 51C85) was cited. In this authority of Indian Supreme Court it was held that the High Court can in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunged remarks made by it or by a lower Court if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Another case on this point is the case of Ch. Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 657), wherein Justice Muhammad Munir, a Judge of the Lahore High Court, had expunged the remarks from his own order under provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. It was held that the Judge had power to reconsider and expunge observations damaging to any person and it did not amount to review of the criminal judgment. After satisfying myself that the present petition under provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
4. Was maintainable, I advert to the merits of the case. The applicant is a very senior lawyer of this Court and he was on the panel of the Advocate-General when he was assigned the Bail Application No,927 of 1993 on behalf of the State. When that application was argued by the counsel for the applicant before my learned brother Justice Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, the applicant Mr. Muhammad Hayat Qureshi held a view that principles of consistency were attracted as the co- accused had already been granted bail and, therefore, he had raised no objection on behalf of the State to the grant of bail. The learned Judge thereafter retired to the chamber to pass the order on the bail application and, therefore, the applicant could not argue in support of his no-objection.
5. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned amicus curiae is that passing of the remarks as have been passed in this case against the applicant, amounted to damaging his interest without giving him a chance of explanation, and therefore, were against the principles of natural justice. It was also argued that adverse remarks were actually communicated to the authorities mentioned in those remarks as a result of which the applicant was out of job from the office of the Advocate-General right from the year 1993 till this date. It was also contended that even if the applicant had committed the mistake of raising no objection without supporting it by his arguments, he had undergone enough punishment in shape of having been deprived of the work by the office of the Advocate-General. It is a matter of general practice that the learned Judges sometimes asked the questions on bail applications from the State Counsel and sometimes they are satisfied of mere raising of "no objection" from the State Counsel while sometimes, they are satisfied only when the State Counsel gives his reasons for such no objection. It depends on the case to case. It cannot be said at this stage that the applicant was called upon to elaborate and explain the reasons for his no objection and still he failed to do so.
6. Orders were passed later on in the chambers where the remarks were included in the chambers.
7. The case of the applicant is that he learnt thereafter that he was required to give his reasons for his no objection. Learned A.A.-G. Under the circumstances has no objection if the remarks are now expunged from the order. I, therefore, allow this application and order that the adverse remarks passed in the order dated 22-11-1993 on Criminal Bail Application No,927 of 1993 are hereby expunged. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.