Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 4265 2025 SLD 4265 = 2025 PLD 557
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petitions Nos. 809, 810, 813 and 792 of 2024, decided on 7th April, 2025. (Against the order dated 13.06.2024 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in T.As. Nos. 30073, 28372, 28362 and 28373 of 2024).
Present: Yahya Afridi, C.J., Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Shakeel Ahmad, JJ
Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi, Special Prosecutor, assisted by Mudassar Hussain Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-onRecord for Petitioner (in all cases).
Respondents Not represented (in all cases). Date of hearing: 7th April, 2025.

The STATE through P.G. Punjab, Lahore---Petitioner

VERSUS

JUDGE ATC NO. 1, RAWALPINDI and others---Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 203

 

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 203---Chief Justice of High Court---Observations---State functionaries were aggrieved of observations made by Chief Justice of Lahore High Court against them in judgment pertaining to transfer of a criminal case from one Court to the other Court---Validity---Chief Justice of High Court acted within his Constitutional authority under Article 203 of the Constitution to supervise proceedings of subordinate Courts, including Anti-Terrorism Courts---In the light of dismissal of reference against Presiding Judge by Administrative Judge due to insufficient grounds, the Chief Justice was fully justified in not taking further action on the transfer application, which lacked merit and was based solely on a reference that lacked compelling evidence---Chief Justice of a High Court in a province is the patris familias of judiciary within that province---Any inaction on the part of Chief Justice of High Court, in response to any such like complaint of a judicial officer would be contrary to his Constitutional obligations under Article 203 of the Constitution---Observations in question were not to be regarded as determinative or conclusive in any subsequent forum and any future assessment of their conduct should be made independently, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with the law---Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register