| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3160 = 1963 SLD 3160 = 1963 PLD 20 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 238 of 1962, decided on 9th November 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J
Petitioner in person. Nemo for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 9th November 1962
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 238 of 1962, decided on 9th November 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J
Petitioner in person. Nemo for
Respondent. Date of hearing : 9th November 1962
RAO MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ KHAN-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Expungement-Remarks against Advocate, in High Court judgment-Resting on "personal observation " and " impression " of Court-Possibility of review by Supreme Court excluded Remarks, "mild reproof "-Not expunged. An Advocate of the High Court sought expungement from a judgment of that Court, of a passage in which certain words used by him in the presentation of an argument, in an appeal were described as discourteous "by any standard", so that coupled with "the tone in which they were uttered," they might have constituted contempt of Court. The Court however expressly refrained from taking action in contempt, but recorded a reproof in mild terms viz., that what the Advocate did " was perhaps not the proper thing to do." According to the Advocate, the words used by him related to a request that the case be certified as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court and that his citations of certain Supreme Court authorities may be incorporated in the judgment. This was regarded by the Division Bench as " implying that he dared the Court to dismiss his appeal ". Held, that the impression that the words used were, or were intended to be, a challenge, was based on the whole of the Advocate's conduct including the tone of his voice, and so rested on the personal observation and impression of the Division Bench, excluding possibility of a judicial review. The observations were not outside the scope of the proceeding before the Division Bench. No final proceeding was commenced, and at the end, only a mild admonition was administered, which did not in law require a notice to show cause, by way of due process. The petition was dismissed. (b) Advocate---Right and duty to place client's case before Court " with maximum of emphasis "-Overdoing his part-Adop tion of a certain " tone " of voice, interpreted as challenge by Court-Court would be well advised to " excuse ". JUDGMENT CORNELIUS, C. J.-This is an unusual petition, in that it is by an Advocate of the High Court of West Pakistan, Mr. R. M. Ashfaq Khan, and…