Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2627 2010 SLD 2627 2010 SCMR 72
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petitions Nos.722-L of 2002 and 288-L of 2006, decision dated: 24-08-2009
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, CH. IJAZ AHMED AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

TASNIM JALAL and others

VS

. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, A.N.F. and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Interpretation of statutes-------Saving clause---Object and scope---Saving clause is generally used to preserve' from destruction certain rights, remedies or privileges already existing---Saving means that it saves all rights the party previously had but it does not create any new right in his favour. Arnold's case (1856) 69 ER 911 rel. (b) Words and phrases--- ----"Repeal"---Meaning---Word "repeal" means to revoke, rescind etc. (c) Words and phrases--- ----"Expire"---Meaning---Word "expire" means to cone to an end. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Such jurisdiction is always discretionary in character---He who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Nawab Syed Raunak Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236; Rana Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCMR 1462 and Noora's case PLD 1973 SC 469 rel. (e) Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance (VI of 1995)--- ----S. 37---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Forfeiture of property---Predecessor-in-interest of petitioner was owner of properties in question who was convicted abroad on the charge of possessing and distributing Heroin---Authorities filed application, on the basis of passed by foreign Court, before High Court for forfeiture of properties owned by accused in Pakistan-High Court allowed the application and passed whereby properties owned by accused were forfeited---Validity---Petitioner failed to raise any substantial question of law---Supreme Court in the interest of justice and fair-play, re-examined case of petitioner and did not find any infirmity or illegality in the ---Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of finding of High Court while exercising power under Art. 185 (3) of the Constitution---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the passed by High Court---Leave to appeal was refused. Saiyyid Abul Ala Maudoodi's case PLD 1964 SC 673; Arnold's case (1856) 69 EDR 911; Nabi Ahmed's case PLD 1969 SC 599; Abdur Rehman's case 1978 SCMR 292; Bhai Khan's case PLD 1992 SC 14; Zia Ullah Khan's case PLD 1989 Lah. 554; Government of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department v. Zia Ullah Khan and 2 others 1992 SCMR 602;…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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