Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 983 of 1966, decided on 8th April 1977.
‑‑‑ Diplomatic immunity, right of‑Petitioner, charged for offences under Ss. 304‑A/338/279, P. P. C., an employee of a foreign Mission in Pakistan‑Immunity clause "Privilege of family and household", held, attracted in circumstance and petitioner within his right to claim immunity against his trial by a Court in Pakistan.--‑[Jurisdiction]
Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edn. Vol. 7, p. 272 ref.
Sharif Hussain Bokhari for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State.
Date of hearing : 8th April1977.
Sher Zaman petitioner was sent up for trial under sections 304‑A, 279 and 338, P. P. C. by Okara Police. The accused claimed immunity on the ground that he was a member of the German Embassy in Pakistan. The learned Magistrate however found vide his judgment 10‑9‑1966 that this immunity could not be claimed by him as the list of the Embassy's staff supplied to the Foreign Office of the Government of Pakistan by the German Embassy did not include the name of the petitioner as to those who held immunity. Aggrieved against this judgment the revision petition was filed in this Court which was admitted by this Court vide order dated 5‑12‑66 relying on Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 7, page 272.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well' as learned counsel for the State and have perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel. The record of the case reveals that there is a certificate to show that Sher Zaman was an employee of the German Embassy for the last nine years since the issue of the certificate. In view of the above clause 577‑privilege of family and household‑would be attracted in case of the petitioner and he would be in his rights to claim immunity against his trial by the Courts in Pakistan. This, however, would not absolve him of the offence and the proper course for the State would be to approach the Embassy and ask them to waive this privilege in. view of the gravity of the alleged offence so committed by the petitioner. This matter could have been resolved soon after the case was admitted but unfortunately the case was put up for the first time after a lapse of ten years. However, the negligence of the office cannot retard the course of justice. However, I accept the revision petition on this point of law and direct the State to seek the reined under the law available to it.
Revision allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer