| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 454 1999 SLD 454 = 1999 SCMR 2203 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Review Petition No.95 of 1996 in ConstitutionalPetition No.36 of 1994, heard on 10-05-1999. (On Review fromthe judgment of this Court, dated 3-8-1994, passed inConstitutional Petition No.36 of 1994)
AJMAL MIAN, C.J., MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, MAMOON KAZI, CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JJ
Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Senior Advocate and Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1. Sh. Anwar-ul-Haq, Deputy Attorney-General
Criminal Review Petition No.95 of 1996 in ConstitutionalPetition No.36 of 1994, heard on 10-05-1999. (On Review fromthe judgment of this Court, dated 3-8-1994, passed inConstitutional Petition No.36 of 1994)
AJMAL MIAN, C.J., MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, MAMOON KAZI, CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JJ
Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Senior Advocate and Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1. Sh. Anwar-ul-Haq, Deputy Attorney-General
FAQIR ULLAH-
VS
KHALILUZZAMAN and others
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 188 & 25
Law: Supreme Court Rules, 1980
Section: O.XXVI, R.1
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302, 306, 307 & 308
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 43
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Arts. 188 & 25---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 306, 307 & 308---Maxim "audi alteram partem"_-�Review of Supreme Court ---Contentions were that order of the Supreme Court passed under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution was not only violative of the provisions of S.302(b)(c), P.P.C. but the Court had also misconstrued Ss.302(a). 306(c) 307 & 308, P.P.C. and petitioner who was father of the deceased and was also complainant in the case of murder of her daughter was not made a party to the proceedings culminating in the impugned which omission was not only against the Injunctions of Islam but was also violative of Art.25 of the Constitution which guaranteed equality before law of all citizens and equal protection of law to them; that principle of natural justice had been offended on account of petitioner having been deprived of right of hearing and that impugned had been passed without due notice to the complainant of the proceedings. which affected his right also, as was coram non judice---Validity---Order having been passed without the impleadment of the petitioner who was father of the deceased and had also lodged the F.I.R. and was, thus, the complainant was violative of Art.25 of the Constitution---Maxim "audi alteram partem" (no man should be condemned unheard) was not confined to proceedings which were judicial in form but extended to all proceedings, by whomsoever held, which may affect the person or property of other rights of the party concerned in the dispute---Complainant and Wali in case of murder and hurt to body was a necessary party both in the case involving Qisas or Tazir--�Petitioner/complainant, therefore, was entitled to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings before Supreme Court and should not have been condemned unheard---Impugned order of the Supreme Court, therefore, would be coram non judice in circumstances.Khalil-uz-Zaman v. Supreme Appellate Court, Lahore and 4 others 'LD 1994 SC 885 and Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large PLD 1987 SC 04 ref.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-----Ss. 306(c)---Murder---Offender is absolved from the sentence…