| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 26 2024 SLD 26 2024 SCMR 63 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
1. Civil Misc. Application No. 677/20 in C.P. NIL/20 [Under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 read with Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. for permission to file and argue the titled CPLA] 2. Civil Misc. Application No. 1875/20 in C.P. NIL/20 [U
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ
Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (through video-link from Lahore) along with applicant in person for Applicant (in C.M.A. 677 of 2020). Haroon-ur-Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicant (in C.M.A. 1875 of 2020). Rasheed A. Rizvi, Senior Adv
1. Civil Misc. Application No. 677/20 in C.P. NIL/20 [Under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 read with Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. for permission to file and argue the titled CPLA] 2. Civil Misc. Application No. 1875/20 in C.P. NIL/20 [U
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ
Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (through video-link from Lahore) along with applicant in person for Applicant (in C.M.A. 677 of 2020). Haroon-ur-Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicant (in C.M.A. 1875 of 2020). Rasheed A. Rizvi, Senior Adv
TAUFIQ ASIF and others---Applicants
VERSUS
General (Retd.) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF and others---Respondents
Law: Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976
Section: 6(1)(f),12(3)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act (XVII of 1976)--- ----Ss. 6(1)(f) & 12(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Trial of accused before the Special Court---Supreme Court taking cognizance of the trial and passing certain directions therein---High Court entertaining a writ petition filed by the accused despite Supreme Court having taken cognizance of the trial---Constitutionality and legality---Special Court comprising of three Judges of the High Court conducted the trial of respondent No. 1 at Islamabad and convicted him---During an interim stage of the trial the matter had come up before the Supreme Court, which took cognizance of the trial before the Special Court at Islamabad and gave certain directions to the Special Court (to proceed with the trial in the absence of accused)---However, in complete disregard of the fact that the Supreme Court had taken cognizance of the Special Court's trial at Islamabad and had sustained it the Lahore High Court entertained a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, and then allowed it (declaring the formation of the special court as violative of law, and devoid of legal sanctity)---Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Lahore High Court had no territorial jurisdiction; that the jurisdiction of special courts is attended to in section 12 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976 and the purported judgment by the Lahore High Court was in derogation thereof; that the Lahore High Court did not have constitutional jurisdiction under any of the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution; that the purported judgment of the Lahore High Court was ab initio void, illegal, unconstitutional and coram non judice; that the writ petition was not maintainable before the Lahore High Court; that the Lahore High Court assumed jurisdiction which exclusively vested in the Supreme Court, under section 12(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976; and that the Lahore High Court had acted in complete derogation of the Constitution and of the law and that it is the duty of bar associations, bar councils and lawyers to ensure that the Constitution and the law is not violated and, if such…
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