Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 3133 = 1974 SLD 3133 = 1974 PLD 44
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1937/B of 1973, decided on 22nd May 1973,
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
Yousaf Ali Khan v. The State P L D 1971 S C 508 ref. Munawar Akhtar for Petitioner.

SHAHBAN-Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE -Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302, 307, 353, 148, 149

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497 -Bail -Abscondence of one accused -May have effect on claim of others for bail on ground of delay-Allegations against ft petitioning accused, and his co-accused however, serious, some of whom allegedly involved in earlier murder case of indiscriminate firing at police party and killing one-Accused reported to be renowned had mashes likely to misuse privilege of bail-Delay and mere bald assertion of being falsely implicated by enemies-Not enough in circumstances to allow bail-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307, 353, 148 & 149. (b) Counsel Decorum in Court- Counsel not to lose balance nor heart while meeting comments by Court during an argument or when hearing judgment announced-Court's comments meant only to elicit better answers so as to reach realities. It needs to be emphasized for the purpose of assurance to the gentle men members of the Bar that there can never be real clash of positions of a Judge and a lawyer during the hearing of a case and this would include those situations also where, during the arguments in a case, the Judge does not agree with the point of view put forward by the lawyer. Most of the remarks and comments, even if they tend to be adverse to the opinion of the counsel, are intended to elicit better answers and argu ments so as to reach realities, legal and factual. Sometimes the Court feels lot of difficulty when assistance or enough of it is not forthcoming. This attitude on the part of the Bench is not only understandable but also is well known to the lawyers who have chance of appearing before the High Court. In the above-explained process of reaching the correct conclusions involving sometimes appreciative, neutral or adverse comment, the lawyer should neither lose balance nor heart and, in either case, must in all circumstances avoid jumping into a role of an adversary qua the Judge in this honourable and laudable task being performed by them as team mates In other words, while hearing any comment which does not immediately go in line with his argument, a lawyer should try to remind himself that it is not his duty always to win the case and in all circumstances; and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register