Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 3377 2019 SLD 3377 2019 PLD 675
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of 2019,decision Dated: 23-08-2019, Dates of hearing: 16th, 23rdJuly and 20-08-2019
SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE
For the Petitioners:Ch. Munir Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Ali Imran, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (in Const. P. No. 10 of 2019).Muhammad Ikram Ch., Advoc

ISHTIAQ AHMED MIRZA AND 2 OTHERSVSFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS

Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Section: 9(a)(v)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 184(3)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 428

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 164

(a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S. 9(a)(v)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 164---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petitions regarding the allegations levelled through a media briefing against a Judge of the Accountability Court ('the Judge') who had convicted and sentenced a former Prime Minister ('the accused')---Video recording of Judge purportedly showing him stating that he was pressurized into convicting the accused, in absence of any concrete evidence---Whether such video could be considered during the pending appeal of accused before the High Court---Held, that the Court alone could maintain, alter or set aside conviction and sentence of accused on the basis of the evidence brought on the record---Any Commission constituted by the Government or by the Supreme Court, any inquiry or investigation conducted by the police or by any other agency and any probe into the matter by any other institution or body could only render an opinion in the matter of the subject video which opinion was treated by the law as irrelevant and it could not per se be treated as evidence for the benefit of the accused in his appeal pending before the High Court---Subject video could not be of any legal benefit to the accused unless it was properly produced before the High Court, in the pending appeal, its genuineness was established and then the same was proved in accordance with the law for it to be treated as evidence in the case---Constitutional petitions were disposed of. Asif Ali Zardari and another v. The State PLD 2001 SC 568 ref. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 164---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.9(a)(v)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petitions regarding the allegations levelled through a media briefing against a Judge of the Accountability Court ('the Judge') who had convicted and sentenced a former Prime Minister ('the accused')---Video recording of Judge purportedly showing him stating that he was pressurized into convicting the accused, in absence of any concrete evidence---Question as to how such video was to be established as a genuine piece of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492